World Bank Documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/165091468752344105/pdf/multi0...SMP Junior secondary school SPG Former primary teacher training institute SOE Statement of expenditure

Document of

The World Bank

Report No. 15028-IND

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

INDONESIA

SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

JANUARY 26, 1996

East Asia and Pacific Regional OfficeCountry Department IIIPopulation and Human Resources Division

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(as of November 1995)

Currency Unit = Rupiah (Rp)US$1.00 = Rp 2,246Rp I million = US$445

ACADEMIC YEAR

July I - June 30

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BAN National Board of AccreditationBAPPENAS National Development Planning BoardCAS Country Assistance StrategyBST Basic Science TeamD-1 One-year post-secondary diploma courseD-11 Two-year post-secondary diploma courseD-11 Three-year post-secondary diploma courseDGHE Directorate-General of Higher EducationDGPSE Directorate-General of Primary and Secondary EducationFKIP Faculty of education of a universityGOI Government of IndonesiaICR Implementation completion reportIKIP Teacher training institute with education and other faculty departmentsDIP Development budgetKANWIL MOEC provincial officeLPTK General term for teacher training institutionMENPAN State Ministry for Administrative ReformMOEC Ministry of Education and CultureMOF Ministry of FinanceNCB National competitive biddingPIMPRO Office of the project directorPIU Project implementation unitPPAR Project performance audit reportREPELITA Five-Year Development PlanS I Undergraduate degree programS2 Master's level graduate programS3 Doctorate level graduate programSMA Senior secondary schoolSMP Junior secondary schoolSPG Former primary teacher training instituteSOE Statement of expenditureSTKIP Teacher training institute with education faculty department onlyUT The Open University

INDONESIASecondary School Teacher Development Project

Loan and Project Summary

Borrower: Republic of Indonesia

ImplementingAgency: Directorate -General of Higher Education (DGHE)

Ministry of Education and Culture

Poverty Category: Not applicable

Amount: US$60.4 million equivalent

Terms: Repayable in 20 years including five years of grace at theBank's standard variable interest rate

Commitment Fee: 0.75 percent on undisbursed loan balances, beginning 60 daysafter signing, less any waiver

Financing Plan(US$ million equivalent):

GOI IBRD TotalLocal 25.3 24.6 49.9Foreign 1.4 35.8 37.2Total 26.7 60.4 87.1

Economic Rateof Return: Not applicable

Staff AppraisalReport: No. 15028-IND

Map: IBRD 27463

Project IdentificationNumber: ID-PA-4003

- 11 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................. i

1. SECONDARY EDUCATION AND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT ............................ IA. Background ............................................................ 1IB. Major Issues in Secondary Teacher Education ........................................................ 2C. Government Policies on Teacher Education Development ...................................... 6

2. BANK INVOLVEMENT AND LESSONS LEARNED ...............................................6A. Previous Bank Involvement ............................................................. 6B. Lessons Learned ............................................................. 7C. Bank Strategy and Rationale for Bank Involvement ...............................................8

3. THE PROJECT ............................................................. 9A. Project Objectives ............................................................ 9B. Project Components ............................................................ 9C. Project Implementation ............................................................ 17D. Project Monitoring and Evaluation ................................... ......................... 18

4. PROJECT COSTS, FINANCING, PROCUREMENT, AND DISBURSEMENT ... 20A. Project Costs ............................................................ 20B. Financing ....................... : 22C. Procurement ...................... 23D. Disbursement ...................... 27E. Accounts, Audits and Reports ...................... 28

This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission which visited Indonesia in June/July1995 comprising Man He You (Economist, Mission Leader), Alfonso F. de Guzman (SeniorEducation Specialist), Chris Smith (Operations Officer), Carol Ball (Operations Analyst), andYanhong Zhang (Summer Intern). Mari Takahashi Parker (Education Specialist) assisted in dataanalysis and report preparation. Cynthia Cristobal and Mercedes Bautista assisted in the productionof the report. Peer reviewers were Audrey Aarons, Elizabeth M. King, and William E. Rees.Marianne Haug, Director, EA3, and Samuel Lieberman, Acting Chief, EA3PH, have endorsed thereport.

Page

5. BENEFITS AND RISKS ..................................................... 28A. Benefits ..................................................... 28B. Risks ..................................................... 29

6. AGREEMENTS TO BE REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION ............................... 30A. Agreements Reached ..................................................... 30B. Recommendation ..................................................... 32

TABLES IN TEXT

4.1 Summary of Project Costs by Component ..................................................... 204.2 Summary of Project Costs by Category of Expenditure .............................................. 214.3 Financing Plan ..................................................... 234.4 Procurement Arrangements ..................................................... 26

ANNEXES

1. Qualifications of Public Secondary School Teachers, 1992-93 ....................................... 332. Profile of Public IKIPs and STKIPs ..................................................... 343. Profile of Public FKIPs ..................................................... 364. Profile of Private LPTKs, 1994 ..................................................... 385. Academic Qualifications of LPTK Teaching Staff, 1994 ............................................... 396. Economic Analysis ..................................................... 407. Bank Group-Financed Education and Training Projects ................................................. 488. Strengthening Linkages Between LPTKs and Secondary Schools ................................. 499. Coordinating the Training, Recruitment, and Appointment of Teachers ......................... 5310. Technical Assistance Summary ..................................................... 5911. Detailed Five-Year Implementation Schedule ..................................................... 6012. Project Components, Expenditure Accounts by Year,

Expenditure Accounts by Component ..................................................... 7213. Procurement Plan ..................................................... 7514. Estimated Schedule of Disbursements ..................................................... 7615. Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................... 7716. Supervision Plan ..................................................... 8717. Project Efficiency and Sustainablity ..................................................... 8818. Selected Documents and Data Available in the Project File ............................................ 93

CHARTProject Management Organization Structure

MAPIBRD 27463

1. SECONDARY EDUCATION AND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT

A. BACKGROUND

Project Context

1.1 Over the last 25 years, Indonesia has focused on increasing access to educationalopportunities. As a result, from 1969 to 1994, the participation rates in junior secondary edu-cation (grades 7-9, SMP) increased from 15 percent to 54 percent, and in senior secondaryeducation (grades 10-12, SMA) from 9 percent to 34 percent. Currently, about 28,600 secon-dary schools enroll about 11.3 million students, 56 percent boys and 44 percent girls. Most ofthe junior secondary schools offer the general education curriculum; about one-third of thesenior secondary schools offer specialized curricula in home economics and in vocational-technical education. Private schools enroll about one-third of all junior secondary studentsand more than half of the senior secondary student population. About 1.6 million studentsattend Islamic schools.

1.2 REPELITA VI (the Sixth Five-Year Development Plan, 1994-1999) stipulatesthe following education strategies: (i) improving access and equity to education for every per-son; (ii) strengthening linkages among educational inputs, processes, and products to ensurerelevance and quality; and (iii) budgeting more efficiently and making greater use of trainedstaff. In pursuit of those strategies, the Government has started implementing an obligatorynine years of basic education (i.e., six years of primary education and three years of SMP) aswell as programs to improve the quality of education. In addition to expanding enrollments inexisting schools, education would be delivered to difficult-to-reach areas through innovativemeans. This includes organizing small schools (SMP keci!) in remote locations with fewerteachers but flexible teaching assignments and transmitting secondary education lessons toworking people in widely dispersed locations through the various media of distance education(SMP terbuka, "open SMP"). The coverage of secondary education, especially at the juniorlevel, is expected to expand significantly as a result. Qualified teachers will be in demand totrain the new generation of better skilled workers needed by the rapidly growing economy.

1.3 In quantitative terms, the teacher training system has the capacity to produce thesecondary school teachers to meet the needs of the expansion. However, the system as awhole suffers from inefficiency, and the individual training institutions suffer from qual-ity deficiencies--these limit the gains to society from an expanded secondary educationsystem. A project to improve teacher education would have significant benefits. First,LPTKs would improve their efficiency by upgrading their program content, qualifications andeffectiveness of staff, facilities, and linkages with the schools they serve. Second, LPTKs willthen become more cost-effective as they use their resources more efficiently. Further, thebenefits of the improved institutions would extend to the new secondary school teachers(about 25,000 yearly) who would be reached by the project, and the secondary school stu-dents taught by those teachers (about two million yearly).

2 Indonesia Secondary School Teacher Development Project

The Existing Teacher Training System

1.4 There are three types of public LPTKs: the institute with education and otherfaculty departments (IKIP), the institute with an education faculty department only (STKIP),and the education faculty affiliated with a university (FKIP). The institutions vary by owner-ship (public, private), size, location, quality, and other characteristics (Annexes 2 and 3). The31 public LPTKs, consist of 10 IKIPs and two STKIPs located in urban centers and 19 FKIPslocated in rural areas. Together these public institutions produced approximately 20,000teacher in 1994 and are the largest providers of secondary school teachers. The public LPTKsare superior to their private counterparts in facilities, funding and public perception. IKIPBandung, the nearest to Jakarta, has a large faculty and student body and is known as thecenter for mathematics and science education. STKIP Singaraja in Bali is small but has closelinks to local secondary schools. The 211 private LPTKs are of uneven quality and produced24,000 graduates in 1994. Their graduates compete with the public LPTKs for teaching posi-tions in public secondary schools (Annex 4).

1.5 LPTKs are considered an integral part of a higher education system which itself ischanging. A newly created Higher Education Strategy Commission is addressing key issuessuch as low staff motivation and morale, inefficient utilization of existing resources, and sys-temic rigidity. Four elements would constitute the cornerstones of the emerging reform: (i)institutional autonomy, (ii) accountability, (iii) accreditation, and (iv) evaluation. Projectsfollowing this "new paradigm" for higher education are being developed (some of them forWorld Bank financing), which would affect both public and private LPTKs. Tertiary institu-tions will become subject to accreditation based on a self-evaluation process, and competi-tion for resources will gradually be introduced. A semiautonomous National AccreditationBoard (BAN) has been established, and the Higher Education Council, chaired by the Direc-tor-General of Higher Education, will be established in 1996 to take charge of higher educa-tion policy formulation and budget allocation.

B. MAJOR ISSUES IN SECONDARY TEACHER EDUCATION

Efficiency Issues

1.6 Overstaffing at LPTKs. Although the Government has embarked on a "zerogrowth" policy in the public sector, the education sector has been spared, and 25,000 teachingpositions were approved for 1996, including 8,000 new positions. The Directorate-General ofHigher Education (DGHE) has generally maintained zero growth in LPTK staffing, cancelingprograms of study where enrollments no longer warrant their existence. (On exception, newfaculty are recruited from among university graduates, to strengthen subject content knowl-edge, especially in mathematics and science.) Nonetheless, certain public IKIPs are over-staffed. When study programs have been eliminated for lack of student demand, the resultingexcess teaching staff, enjoying civil service status, are kept on the payroll to share teachingloads with others or to do other academic work. This has resulted in a low student-teacheraverage ratio of 9.9:1 for public LPTKs, a figure that masks wide variations, from 4:1 atSTKIP Gorontalo to 12:1 at IKIP Jakarta. Raising the ratio to 12:1, the current student-

Staff Appraisal Report 3

teacher ratio at universities, would free up to 2,400 lecturers who would then have no teach-ing assignment and would be available for reassignment.

1.7 Limited access to inservice training. The upgrading of teachers to SI levelthrough various inservice training programs, including those offered by the Open University(Universitas Terbuka, UT), is in need of support. During the period of rapid expansion of sec-ondary education in the 1970s and 1980s, diploma programs and crash courses were opened by theGovernment in order to overcome teacher shortages. As a result, about three-quarters of the jun-ior secondary and more than half of the senior secondary school teachers are underqualifiedbecause the minimum qualification for secondary school teachers today is an SI (bachelor's)degree (Annex 1). While LPTKs have been commissioned since 1992 to provide three-year postsecondary diploma (D-III) upgrading courses for junior secondary teachers, less is being done forthe upgrading of teacher qualification from D-III to SI. Various universities are now offering ex-tension courses to allow for S I upgrading, which the teachers pay for themselves. Since these pro-grams require fees and are campus-based (except for the bachelor-level students at UT) teacherswho work in outlying areas or who cannot afford the fees are unable to participate. In addition,many of the self-instructional modules for the upgrading programs were produced quickly and notfield-tested, so there are doubts about quality and effectiveness. By this standard, a fair sized in-service program will be required to upgrade these teachers under the new standards in ordernot to lose the investments already made on these individuals.

Institutional Quality Issues

1.8 Underqualified faculty. LPTK faculty qualifications are generally low. To meetthe demands for teaching staff in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the LPTKs recruited newfaculty members directly from their own graduating classes with the Sl degree. As a result,only 23 percent of the LPTK teaching staff have the S2 (master's) or S3 degree (doctorate),and many lecturers have no classroom teaching experience in secondary schools. While fac-ulty at U.S. teacher education institutions typically hold the S3 degree, the current Indonesianobjective is to achieve the S2 qualification for at least 50 percent of all faculty at tertiary levelinstitutions. Fellowship programs have already been put in place, and taking into accountthose currently taking graduate studies, the proportion would increase to 37 percent (Annex5).

1.9 The teacher educators themselves need help to improve their subject-specificpedagogical knowledge and skills. Under the current LPTK curriculum, the subject-educationcourses are too general and do not sufficiently address the question of how to teach specificconcepts and skills, and how to assess and provide feedback to students. The links amongLPTKs are weak, and LPTK links with international teacher education institutions are few.

1.10 Rigid preservice curriculum. The SI curriculum needs improvements in scope,quality, and relevance to local teaching situations, especially at the junior secondary level.Through the Basic Science Team (BST) composed of educators from the Bandung Institute ofTechnology and IKIP Bandung, efforts began in 1989 to strengthen subject matter contentcourses in mathematics and science teacher education programs. Similar efforts are neededfor the other subject areas. Further, LPTK students graduate with a major in the one subjectcontent area that they would teach in school; however, those SMPs with small enrollments


need teachers who can teach more than one subject (horizontal flexibility). In 1992, someLPTKs have begun experimenting with a curriculum that would allow the graduates to teachat both SMP and SMAs (vertical flexibility), an initiative that needs support. In the area ofpedagogy, the current courses are oriented toward the senior secondary students, ignoring thepedagogy needs of early adolescents, which are different.

1.11 Facilities not up to standard. Equipment for the teaching of mathematics andscience subjects are inadequate. Measured against the minimum standard for equipment setby the BST for teaching the mathematics and science curricula (para. 3.4), there is widevariation among the institutions in the supply and quality of equipment as well as storage fa-cilities, maintenance capacity, and general condition of laboratories. Because training andguidance are inadequate, the available equipment are often underutilized and inappropriatelymaintained.

1.12 Reference and other library books at LPTKs are out of date. Many of the titlespurchased under the Second Teacher Training Project (Loan 2101 -IND), completed in 1990,are at least five years old. The writing and translating of key works in education to BahasaIndonesia is needed to give teacher educators and trainees, most of whom cannot read foreignlanguages, a wider access to new materials. Moreover, teacher educators do not have accessto the textbooks, teachers' manuals, and curriculum guides currently used in secondaryschools, leaving them out of touch with the national curriculum as it is applied in the class-room.

1.13 Faculty offices are crowded or lacking altogether. In many IKIPs, as many as 20lecturers share a single room. There is insufficient space to provide them with their own deskswhere they can prepare their lessons or counsel their students. There is rarely any space avail-able for staff meetings or for group discussions with students. Such conditions work againstinstilling professionalism among faculty, collegiality, and commitment to their home institu-tion.

1.14 LPTKs uninformed of their "market." Research on effective schools show theimportance of a supportive and cooperative relationship between the teacher training institu-tion and the schools it serves. Currently, Indonesian teacher education programs do not em-phasize exchanges between schools and LPTKs. Often, teacher trainees are trained without aconcrete understanding of what happens in schools on a day-to-day basis. For example, train-ees have very little guidance during teaching practicum, and little opportunity for spendingtime observing or researching in schools. International studies have shown that essentialchanges in the performance of student teachers occur from week 8 to week 10, a finding thatsupports the need for a minimum of one semester for the student teaching experience. Thecurrent training context is not conducive to producing proficient trainees who identifystrongly as teachers and have a solid, practical command of their profession.

1.15 Inadequate preparation of teacher candidates. The higher education entranceexamination scores indicate that a great number of the LPTK recruits have not mastered thesecondary school course content. It is well established that the entry-level characteristics ofstudents are critical to their future learning. LPTKs, however, rarely develop an understandingof the entry characteristics of their students. In turn, many graduates are deficient in their subject

Staff ppraisal Report 5

content competency. In order to improve the quality of the graduates, it is necessary that thenew students' performance be assessed and that guidance and training on learning strategiesand study habits be provided.

1.16 Career information systems need to be developed. Up to the mid-1980s, nearly allof those who qualified in a secondary school teaching subject had a clear career path. Sincethen, the absorptive capacity of secondary schools has declined. It is difficult to attract teach-ers to the rural and remote areas. Teacher shortages still persist in some specia!ized subjects(e.g., art and music) in provinces where the local LPTK does not run an appropriate trainingprogram, and new recruits come from elsewhere. But in most of the subject areas, teachingpositions are filled (many graduates are said to be either unemployed or have nonteachingemployment). The Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC) delegates the recruitment ofteachers for the provinces to the respective Kanwils (provincial education authorities). Theappointments of public school teachers, who are national civil service employees, are proc-essed centrally in Jakarta. Since they are not regularly linked to the Kanwil office, mostLPTKs do not have timely information on employment, cannot provide employment counsel-ing to their students, and do not follow up on the placement of their graduates.

1.17 Weak educational research. LPTK lecturers undertake research mainly to up-grade their qualifications or to gain credit points for promotion. In many institutions, little ofthis research relates to secondary schools. This is also because teachers themselves are sel-dom exposed to classroom research and have rarely thought about themselves as researchers.

1.18 Research to improve instruction is needed. In addition to a well-functioning as-sessment system for diagnosing the characteristics of the entering SI students, LPTKs shouldpromote studies related to improving classroom teaching. Current LPTK research provideslittle feedback for use by lecturers in improving teacher effectiveness or by practicing teach-ers in improving their instruction. LPTKs are often criticized that courses fail to exemplifygood pedagogy and remain unchanged from year to year.

1.19 Sharing of experiences and scholarly exchanges is limited. Many LPTKs publisha journal with articles from their own teaching staff, but these do not receive wide circulationoutside the institution. Establishing a national journal on teacher education, particularly witha focus on teaching techniques and research on schools, would reach a wider audience andwould serve as a forum for issues in Indonesian teacher education.

1.20 Inadequate accreditation systems. Currently there is no external validation of theexit quality of graduates of the public LPTKs or of the programs offered. Courses of study andtheir corresponding tests are designed, and administered, by the lecturers themselves. Althoughthere are comprehensive exams and thesis exams for those students who write theses, these do notcover all students. The diplomas awarded as a result of the aggregate of courses are recognized andaccepted as the qualification for entry into the ranks of civil service employment. Under the Sec-ond Teacher Training Project (Loan 2101 -IND), a system of self-evaluation and peer valida-tion was developed and piloted. Separately, under the ongoing Second Higher EducationDevelopment Project (Loan 331 I-IND) a self-evaluation model is being developed which isconcerned with input, process, and product. The results of these two self-evaluation modelscan be considered as the bases of self-improvement and future direction-setting by the insti-


tutions concerned. Both of these systems provide a model which could become part of thenew program under the BAN.

C. GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON TEACHER EDUCATION

1.21 The Government has made several important changes in teacher education poli-cies in recent years. In 1989 a policy was established requiring all new primary school teach-ers to be trained at the D-11 level (two-year postsecondary school) instead of the uppersecondary level as before. The Bank is currently assisting the implementation of this policythrough the Primary Teacher Development Project (Loan 3496-IND). The policy requires allpracticing primary school teachers (except those near retirement) to be upgraded to the D-11level through distance or face-to-face education. In addition DGHE has phased out all di-ploma courses for the preservice education of secondary school teachers (lower and upper),so all new teachers at that level now need to have a SI degree. Practicing lower secondaryschool teachers are now being officially upgraded to D-III level at the Government's expense.So far there has been no regulation requiring current secondary school teachers to upgrade tothe SI level, although many have begun to upgrade using their own funds

2. BANK INVOLVEMENT AND LESSONS LEARNED

A. PREVIOUS BANK INVOLVEMENT

2.1 Over the last 25 years, the Bank Group has been involved in financing 33 educa-tion and training projects in Indonesia (US$2,072.5 million), among which 21 projects(US$1,406.0 million) have been implemented through the MOEC, including four projectswith substantial teacher training content (Annex 7). Bank lending has assisted the Govern-ment from the start-up stages of alleviating shortage of technical personnel, to an increasedemphasis on quality issues, and then to a wider sectoral emphasis on investment programsand policy reforms in education.

2.2 The Fourth Education Project (Loan 1237-IND), 1976-84, assisted the technicalfaculties of IKIPs Padang and Yogyakarta providing buildings, furniture, and equipment for2,750 students and domestic and overseas degree and nondegree fellowships to 186 teachingstaff, to improve their pedagogical skills and the mastery of subject matter content. The FirstTeacher Training Project (Loan 1433-IND), 1977-84, provided classrooms, educationalequipment and instruments, books, and learning centers; implemented the 1976 primaryteacher education (SPG) curriculum and developed courses for the upgrading of SPG teachersand administrative staff; the 1979 LPTK curriculum was produced; various subject matterprograms (including Bahasa Indonesia, English, mathematics) were improved; and coursesfor upgrading IKIP academic and administrative staff were conducted. In the Second TeacherTraining Project (Loan 2101-IND), 1982-90, equipment was supplied to various teachertraining programs in Jakarta, Yogyakarta, and Malang; the accompanying fellowship

StaffAppraisal Report 7

program trained six doctors, 124 masters, and 150 others who attended short courses; build-ings, books, and educational equipment were provided to nine IKIPs and two FKIPs; 54doctors, 111 masters were trained; and various programs for IKIPs were developed, includinga sandwich program for three graduate faculties, refresher programs, and short-term upgrad-ing courses for lecturers and administrators. The Primary School Teacher Development Proj-ect (Loan 3496-IND), ongoing since 1992, would produce well-trained primary schoolteachers through the development of a tertiary-level diploma course. Placing graduates isproving difficult because of the current zero-growth policy in hiring civil servants and thecontinued hiring of unqualified teachers.

B. LESSONS LEARNED

2.3 The following lessons have been learned from preceding Bank-assisted teachertraining projects in Indonesia. The project performance audit report (PPAR) "IndonesiaFourth Education Project" (Report No. 6312, 1986) and the implementation completion report(ICR) noted the difficulty in managing multiple project implementation units (PlUs) and theneed to keep funding operation and maintenance after the end of the project. The PPAR"Indonesia Fifth Education (First Teacher Training) Project" (Report No. 6315, 1986) notedthe lack of training in the use of equipment procured by the project, minimizing the potentialbenefit of that investment. And the ICR "Indonesia Second Teacher Training Project" (ReportNo. 10217, 1991) noted the lack of coordination among units of the MOEC charged withimplementing the project; inadequate staffing for project management; the lack of English-language competency of the teaching staff, minimal usefulness of project-procured librarybooks and references; and the lack of systematic mechanism for the selection, monitoring,reentry, and utilization of project fellowship awardees.

2.4 Other recent Bank-supported teacher training projects point to the following les-sons: (i) the need for intensive Bank supervision in the early stages of implementation and asuitable balance of skills on supervision missions; and (ii) the importance of expert advice tothe counterparts so that the local staff can gain from training opportunities

2.5 The above lessons have been taken into account in the design of the proposedproject. The PIU for this project will be under the administrative supervision of the Govern-ment's project unit for teacher education (PIMPRO), analogous to and supported by the PIUfor the ongoing Primary School Teacher Development Project (Loan 3496-IND), and wouldhave four senior education professionals assisting the Project Manager (para. 3.26). Coordi-nation among project implementation subunits would be assured by the Project DevelopmentTeam of the office of the Project Manager, which would include representatives of the Direc-torate-General of Primary and Secondary Education (DGPSE) and the Open University(UT). Predeparture training, especially in the English language (para. 3.14), and training inthe use of equipment (para. 3.4) are integral parts of their respective components. Further, theproject would support the translation to Bahasa Indonesia of selected education books in in-ternational languages (para. 3.5), to widen readership in the teacher education institutions.


C. BANK STRATEGY AND RATIONALE FOR BANK INVOLVEMENT

Bank Strategy

2.6 The proposed project supports the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for Indo-nesia which was presented to the Board on March 21, 1995. In terms of education and train-ing, the Bank's strategy calls for continuing to assist Indonesia in meeting its developmentobjectives through a lending program that would address critical issues in human resourcedevelopment, especially those related to educational quality. This means increasing expendi-tures on education and better distribution of teachers, staff training, and learning materials. Atthe same time, the strategy calls for adaptation of approaches as appropriate to the transitionunderway in Indonesia. In education and training, this means focusing the assistance to re-gional and provincial levels and engaging the participation of beneficiaries at those decentral-ized locations.

2.7 The proposed project actively pursues both elements of the strategy. On the onehand, it directly addresses the educational issues of the quality of teacher formation and theefficiency of teacher deployment. On the other hand, by taking the individual teacher traininginstitution as the unit of development, the project diverts attention from the DGHE in Jakartato focus more sharply on the LPTKs which are dispersed at 31 locations in the wide archipel-ago. As was attempted during project preparation, project implementation would be throughpreparation efforts and proposals by the individual institutions (with the help of techniciansand managers from the center, as needed), most of which are in the provinces.

Rationale for Bank Involvement

2.8 The Bank's unique comparative advantage is its having assisted in the formula-tion, implementation, and evaluation of education projects throughout the developing worldand in Indonesia for over two decades. The Bank is a trusted partner in education develop-ment in Indonesia and is being called upon at this stage of the country's development to in-tensify assistance in strategic initiatives in all levels of education. Lessons from ongoingprojects in basic education are being considered in preparing a series of secondary educationprojects focused on expansion and quality improvements at provincial levels. The ongoingproject in primary school teacher education provides invaluable experience on coordinatingmany governmental agencies to make teacher training responsive to the needs of teachers inschools. And an ongoing project in university research provides the impetus for the prepara-tion of a new project aimed at improving undergraduate education along the lines of the "newparadigm" of higher education (para. 1.5).


3. THE PROJECT

A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

3.1 The primary objective of the proposed project is to enhance teaching-learning proc-esses in secondary schools through the improvement of teacher education in 31 publicLPTKs. The project would support activities in these institutions that promote quality andefficiency in the preservice and inservice programs (including curricular, resource and staffdevelopment); build educational research capacity; and enhance effective management. Fur-ther, the project would support activities to establish sustainable linkages between LPTKs andsecondary schools and to define a wider mandate, toward conversion to university status forselected LPTKs.

B. PROJECT COMPONENTS

3.2 To achieve the above objectives, the project would have the following compo-nents: (i) improving preservice and inservice teacher education; (ii) strengthening linkages tosecondary schools; (iii) raising the qualifications of teacher educators; (iv) building educa-tional research capacity; and (v) preparing for a wider mandate. In addition, the project wouldactively promote the participation of female educators and strengthen the project implementa-tion capacity of DGHE.

Component 1: Improving Preservice and Inservice Teacher Education(Base cost: US$30.6 million)

3.3 Curriculum improvement The SI curriculum would be further developed forverticalflexibility (to allow students to shift between teaching in junior secondary and teach-ing in senior secondary), horizontalflexibility (to enable graduates to teach more than onesubjects), and externalflexibility (to enable graduates to compete for employment outside theeducation sector). Under this project, a team for English and another for the social sciences(history, geography, economics, moral education) would be organized to further developflexibility in their respective subject areas. Comparable to the Bandung-based Basic ScienceTeam (BST), which was organized to improve the science and mathematics curricula, eachteam would include a representative from the LPTK, the university, and the secondary school.Representatives from the curriculum department of the MOEC's research and developmentagency (Balitbang Dikbud) would also be involved as resource persons. A third team, forsubject-specific pedagogy, would be organized to recommend curriculum changes in peda-gogy courses (general as well as subject-specific) for horizontal and vertical flexibility. Thisteam would have four members, to represent the pedagogy of language, mathematics, sci-ences, and social sciences. The teams would be based at IKIPs known for their strong Englishlanguage, social science, and pedagogy programs, respectively. Based on the success of theabove teams, a fourth team, for Bahasa Indonesia, could be organized at project midtern,following assessment of feasibility. The curriculum teams would call national meetings toinitiate the process; conduct the analysis and planning of curriculum development; visit SMPsand SMAs to assess content and pedagogical competency needed to teach at those levels andshare the assessment with LPTKs; and organize for processing feedback, curriculum revision,


and implementation at LPTKs. At negotiations, the Government provided assurances that notlater than July 1, 1996, the curriculum teams for English, social sciences, and subject-specificpedagogy would be established; each such team would be established in an IKIP selected onthe basis of its strong English, social sciences or subject-specific pedagogy program, respec-tively; and thereafter such teams would be maintained until the completion of the project[para. 6.1 (a)].

3.4 Science equipment The BST (para.3.3), which would coordinate the implemen-tation of this subcomponent, maintains a standard list of equipment which meets the curricu-lar requirements in LPTK biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Based on this list,the 10 IKIPs and two STKIPs have checked their current laboratory stock and identified theitems needed, to bring their respective institutions up to standard. The BST would revieweach request, assess the condition of storage facilities, and verify the availability of recurrentbudgets for the provision of maintenance and consumables. It would develop a final list withthe requesting institution to be recommended for procurement under the project. The BSTwould also conduct for LPTK staff workshops in the use and maintenance of the equipment.These workshops would help teacher education candidates develop maintenance skills thathelp make their teaching efficient.

3.5 Secondary textbooks and education references. Two complete sets of currentSMP and SMA textbook series published by Balai Pustaka of the Government and by major pub-lishers in the private sector would be provided to all 31 public LPTKs to provide both faculty andstudents access to the textbooks and other curriculum materials that are currently being used inschools. In addition, a set of about 100 titles consisting of the latest international references ineducation and other books on subject content and teaching methods would be provided to the li-braries of each of the LPTKs. The writing of about 25 titles and the translation of about 75 foreignpublications would also be supported. These titles would help lecturers to promote active learningamong their students through discussion, problem-solving, self-study, and homework. Proposalsfor writing or translation would be solicited by the PIU which would organize a team to select theawardees.

3.6 Student support services. A student support center would be established in eachLPTK to provide tutorial services and assistance on study skills development, to help enteringstudents gain the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in their beginning-levelsubject-matter courses. The LPTK would assign office space for the center which would havea director and tutors, preferably faculty members during their off hours. The tutors would becompensated accordingly, an incentive that would provide faculty members with an alterna-tive to a second occupation and increase their time for interaction with students on campus.

3.7 Inservice education for secondary school teachers. To upgrade the qualification ofteachers, the majority of whom still have lower than S I qualifications, scholarships would beawarded to applicants who show promise in contributing to school renewal, student teaching andLPTK-school partnerships (Type 1); or are motivated but come from low-income families or re-mote geographical areas (Type 2). Care would be taken to actively seek and include motivatedfemale teachers with leadership qualities for candidacy. Based on recent experience with D-III toSI upgrading, the typical scholarship would cover about 20 academic credits over about two se-mesters, full-time in residential courses (tatap muka) or about three semesters part-time or through


distance education offered at UT. A total of 18,000 scholarships would be awarded (14,000 toSMP teachers, 4,000 to SMA teachers, or about 5 percent of teachers with D-III qualification),with preference to Type I awards. The recipients would be chosen from nominations by individualLPTKs through annual requests from the Kanwil; the number of recipients would be proportionalto the estimated number of teachers with D-111 qualification. Tutors for the distance education pro-gram would be provided by LPTKs at the tutorial centers of UT. Short, on-campus face-to-faceand laboratory sessions would be arranged annually for about 600 distance education trainees wholive in remote locations.

3.8 Learning materials development. To support the upgrading programs, currentmaterials on subject-specific pedagogy developed for the face-to-face and distance educationprograms of UT would be updated. The updating would consist of: (a) compiling feedback on theeffectiveness of the materials, revision of content consistent with improvements in the Slcurriculum (para. 3.3), correcting errors; (b) editing for clarity of writing and presentation; (c)trying out the revised materials in UT classrooms and revising the materials further on the basis ofusers' comments and observations; (d) designing, typesetting, and illustrating the new edition; and(e) printing the new edition. About 100 modules and accompanying guides for self-study, whichare used in regular classroom courses or for distance learning, would be updated under the project.UT teams consisting of specialists in subject-specific pedagogy, SMP or SMA teachers, andtextbook or module development consultants would undertake the updating.

3.9 Offices and conference rooms. Modest study accommodation for lecturers andsmall, departmental conference rooms would be provided to the IKIP or STKIP departmentsexhibiting urgent need for space. The office area would average 6 sq. m. per staff. Individualoffices may be allocated to senior staff (guru besar, lektor kepala), shared offices to four ormore junior staff. The conference room area would average 12 sq. m. The review and revisionof space-use plans, including the partitioning of underutilized buildings, would be preferredover new construction. The project would provide offices for up to 3,600 faculty members(about 36 percent of the total teaching staff of the 12 target institutions), the estimated numberof faculty members who would need office space. Conference rooms would be providedwhere space is available near the departmental office concerned.

Component 2: Strengthening Linkages to Secondary School(Base cost: US$5.4 million)

3.10 Supporting school linkages. To strengthen teaching practicum and linkages to sec-ondary schools, a five-member team composed of three representatives from LPTKs withrelatively good teaching pract: ims and two members from other LPTKs would be estab-lished with assistance from th 'LU. The team, in consultation with Kanwils and secondaryschool teachers, would draft suggestions for improving the content of the student teachingexperience and for providing incentives for schools, teachers, and LPTK staff. Such incen-tives which include suggestions for improving student teaching experiences would be sharedin regional meetings with representatives of all LPTKs, Kanwils, and secondary school teach-ers.

3.11 A small-grant system would be established to finance activities specifically focusedon improving student teaching and field experiences for teacher trainees, including selection


and training of supervising teachers, early introduction of field experiences prior to studentteaching, and evaluation and grading of student teachers. To be eligible for the small grants,proponents must show that the LPTK and schools jointly developed the proposal. One of thegrants would support the design of an assessment system for student teachers. The final prod-uct would be a handbook for implementing the student teaching practicum, to be implementedunder normal and sustainable conditions, without project funding. At negotiations, the Gov-ernment provided assurances that not later than July 1, 1996, the LPTK teaching practicumteam would be established and thereafter maintained until the completion of the project; notlater than July 31, 1997, the draft handbook for the implementation of the student teachingpracticum would be furnished to the Bank for comments; and, promptly thereafter, the hand-book taking into account the comments of the Bank would be finalized [para. 6.1(b)].

3.12. To improve efficiency in the training system, DGHE would also take measures thatwould optimize LPTK staff assignment and deployment and at the same time enhance LPTKlinkage to schools. The following would be considered: (a) teachers who entered LPTKswithout previous secondary teaching experience would be assigned to secondary schools(manily SMP) or to the inservice training programs (D-III and SI upgrading) conducted bythe UT, as teachers and tutors, respectively (or for equivalent field service), for an appropriateperiod of time; and (b) those teaches who have had the necessary experience would be as-signed to SMPs or to the UT program, also for an appropriate period, to renew their secon-dary school or equivalent experience. Other options for deployment to the field are the fol-lowing: assignment as tutors in the open SMP (SMP terbuka), assignment as trainors in thevarious inservice training programs, and recognizing the field service with academic equiva-lence, an incentive for LPTK faculty. The measures could involve the provision of appropri-ate training. The project would support DGHE efforts through the provision of local technicalassistance and coverage of regular administrative costs. At negotiations, the Governmentprovided assurances that not later than March 31, 1997, an action plan for the deployment ofabout 2,400 excess LPTK faculty members to secondary schools and to UT would be pre-pared and furnished to the Bank for comments; such plan would include: proposed incentives,requirements that faculty members who have not had previous experience teaching at secon-dary school level complete a specified period of time teaching at secondary schools, require-ments that all faculty members have periodically required teaching experience at the secon-dary school level, and proposal to increase the average student/teacher ratio of the LPTKs to12 students per teacher; and that promptly thereafter all measures required to carry out theaction plan, taking into account the Bank's comments thereon, would be taken [para. 6.1(c)].

3.13 Partnerships with foreign institutions. As recommended by the project prepa-ration study teams which visited teacher education institutions abroad, LPTKs would usegrant funds to form partnerships with foreign institutions which have well-developed, col-laborative, field-based programs with schools. The partnership would include exchange ofstaff and teachers consultancies as well as the interchange of ideas and interactions betweenLPTKs and schools (Annex 8). The PIU would assist the LPTKs interested in establishingformal agreements with foreign institutions. At negotiations, the Government provided assur-ances that grants would be made in accordance with the procedures and on the conditions ac-ceptable to the Bank [para. 6.1 (d)].


Component 3: Raising the Qualifications of Teacher Educators(Base cost. US$32.4 million)

3.14 The Government has set the target of raising the qualification level of teachingstaff at tertiary level to 50 percent holding graduate degrees. To help teacher educationinstitutions achieve that target, the project would support around 1,600 fellowships at themaster's level and about 150 fellowships at the doctorate level. This would raise the numberof academic staff with graduate qualifications to about 6,800. Applications for fellowshipswould be in the form of institutional proposals from all 31 participating LPTKs. The proposalwould include the list of candidates and detailed analysis of staff needs, showing, amongother things, staff-to-student and gender ratios and staff qualification levels (bachelor's,master's, doctor's) for each teaching department; and justification for each fellowship, interms of the teaching and research needs of the appropriate department. For the doctorateprogram, the research topic would be submitted with the proposal. The LPTKs would beencouraged to include qualified women, particularly those with exemplary educationalleadership as candidates. During appraisal, the Government's criteria for the selection offellowship awardees were reviewed and found satisfactory to the Bank. At negotiations, theGovernment provided assurances that fellowships would be provided in accordance withselection criteria agreed with the Bank [para. 6.1 (e)].

3.15 Master's program. Of the 1,600 master's-level graduate fellowships, 1,450would be undertaken at national institutions. The majority would focus on subject content.Following the model established at Gadjah Mada University and Bandung Institute ofTechnology for the science subjects, national universities were chosen as the targetinstitutions for master's programs in the nonscience subjects. The selection was based on anassessment of the strength of the university department in particular subject areas. Theuniversities selected are: Indonesia (Ul), Pajajaran (UNPAD), Gajah Mada (UGM), Bogor(IPB), Diponegoro (UNDIP), Airlangga (UNAIR), Brawijaya (UNIBRAW), Hasanuddin(UNHAS), and Sumatera Utara (USU). The other 150 fellowships would be awarded, aftercompetition, to international institutions, for specialist study programs not available incountry or where capacity is limited. Participating LPTKs would be assisted in developingprocedures for selecting candidates and, if necessary, in providing remedial programs,especially to improve the candidates' competency in English or other international languages.

3.16 Doctorate program. Many doctorate fellowships would involve the study ofsubject-specific pedagogy (e.g., physics education and mathematics education) inasmuch asmost recruits would have already demonstrated their subject-content competence by complet-ing an appropriate master's qualification. To bring advanced scholars into contact with theinternational academic community, 100 of the 150 doctorate fellowships would be undertakenoverseas. Selection of overseas universities would be based primarily on the university's in-ternational reputation in the respective field, but previous experience in running doctorateprograms for Indonesian students would also be considered. Some of the doctorate fellow-ships would be on subject content rather than subject-specific pedagogy, for those institutionspreparing to offer noneducation degrees and transition to universities under a broader man-date (para. 3.22). At negotiations, the Government provided assurances that all measureswould be taken to ensure that teaching staff, returning from overseas and local degree pro-grams are offered teaching positions appropriate for the training received [para. 6. 1 (f)].


3.17 Refresher courses and faculty workshops. Building on the success of the Sec-ond Teacher Training Project (Loan 2101 -IND), this project would support a similar interna-tional professional development program in the form of short-term fellowships for teachereducators. Participants would be selected on the basis of a written proposal for a study topic.The study topics would be expected to relate directly to the courses taught by the participantin his or her LPTK. About 150 participants would be selected from among faculty memberswho already hold the S2 degree but do not qualify for (or for personal reasons unable to ac-cept) a doctoral fellowship. A limited number of international universities would be selectedas host institutions, likely the same ones as for the doctorate fellowship program (para. 3.16).Proposals involving the production of materials suitable for use in subject-specific pedagogycourses at the LPTK would be preferred over those of a general nature. On their return fromstudy, participants would produce their final manuscript which would be reproduced in lim-ited numbers and distributed to all LPTKs. The authors would be encouraged to make ar-rangements on their own for the commercial publishing of their work. In addition, to upgradethe subject-specific pedagogical knowledge of subject education lecturers, eight regionalworkshops for lecturers in content-specific pedagogy for each major teaching subject wouldbe organized. These staff development workshops would be conducted by instructors withS2 qualifications in subject-specific pedagogy.

Component 4: Building Educational Research Capacity(Base cost: US$2.9 million)

3.18 The proposed project has a variety of activities (paras. 3.19-21) to create a syner-gistic environment for a stronger research culture and a capacity for research both in theLPTKs and the secondary schools. Secondary school teachers and LPTK faculty wouldjointly conduct school-based action research to improve classroom teaching and learningwhile LPTK faculty would conduct educational research to improve curriculum and instruc-tion. The project would support both international and national Masters and Doctorate degreecandidates to return with research skills and contribute to a critical mass of scholars who willbe able to build and develop the research culture. The project would encourage the develop-ment of data collection instruments and scientific research skills as student assessment is con-ducted and monitoring and evaluation of the project implementation is conducted in theLPTKs. The project supports funding for the publication of research at all levels. Publicationsin national and international refereed journals are encouraged in the project to encourage bet-ter quality in educational research.

3.19 Entry-level student assessment. A procedure would be developed for assessingentry-level mastery of the core subjects: natural sciences, mathematics, social sciences,Bahasa Indonesia, and English. The procedure would include tests of subject matter masteryas well as guidelines for scoring and using the results, all of which would be developed andtested at different LPTKs. When ready for wider use, they would be introduced to the otherLPTKs. The tests would be used at the beginning of the relevant introductory courses, toidentify students needing special help (including peer tutoring) and for making decisions onhow best to teach their introductory courses (para. 3.6). A short list of possible tests orguideline developers would be compiled and criteria for selection specified. The terms ofreference would be sent to LPTKs; those institutions submitting promising preliminary


proposals would be invited to a training and proposal writing workshop. In selecting the finalproposals, preference would be given to those which include outstanding SMA teachers asmembers of their test construction teams. An IKIP-based research management team (withthe PIU research coordinator and a representative of Balitbang Dikbud as members) wouldplan the activity, manage the teams of test developers, standardize the assessment procedureguidelines, and ensure high product quality and outcomes. At negotiations, the Governmentprovided assurances that not later than October 1, 1996, the development of a test for newundergraduate degree student assessment at LPTKs would commence; and not later than July31, 1997, the testing of such students using such test would commence [para. 6.1(g)].

3.20 Quality assurance. The diagnostic tests to assess the entry-level subjectknowledge of new S 1 students would also be used as the tests to assess the exit-levelknowledge of all SI graduates, to ensure that the new teacher has mastered the content of thesubject he or she would teach in secondary school. In addition, an instrument to assess theteaching skills of student teachers would be developed and used to assess the same sample ofstudent teachers during their student teaching experience. The development of an assessmentof teaching skills would be undertaken jointly by the LPTKs and a collaborating secondaryschool and would be developed under the small grant program for strengthening the teachingpracticum and linkages to schools (para. 3.10). Together the two instruments would be usedto assess the quality of student output of LPTKs in the latter years of the project Atnegotiations it was agreed with the Government that not later than June 30, 1998, an actionplan for raising admission standards at selected IKIPs, based on the analysis of the testing ofnew undergraduate degree students at LPTKs, would be furnished to the Bank for comments;and thereafter, the action plan would be carried out, taking into account the comments of theBank on such [para. 6.1 (h)].

3.21 Research on the improvement of instruction. Grants would be provided in supportof proposals for studies related to the improvement of instruction in LPTKs. All proposals wouldinclude a new course outline, instructional approaches, learning materials, or other kinds ofteaching resources that would be used to improve the quality of the researchers' own courses insuch ways as: (a) investigating common problems, errors, and misconceptions among SIstudents; (b) studying ways of organizing and providing the laboratory component of ascience course; (c) developing and trying out innovative forms of student assessment;(d) creating and trying out instructional materials; (e) experimenting with approaches to helpteachers become more research oriented; (f) developing and piloting new approaches toforeign language instruction; and (g) trying out systems of student evaluation of LPTKcourses. About five study grants would be awarded each year. The typical study would be for 12-18 months. Joint or collaborative studies would be encouraged. At the completion of each batch ofstudies, regional seminars would be held where researchers can review each other's results andproducts. A compilation of results would be published in special editions of educational journals.This program would be managed by the IKIP-based research team. The grants would be made inaccordance with the procedures and on the conditions acceptable to the Bank.


Component 5: Preparing for a Wider Mandate(Base cost: US$1. I million)

3.22 Planning for a wider mandate. The 10 IKIPs would be asked to consider conver-sion to universities. Two or three IKIPs would be selected as institutions which would be assistedin developing S I content programs in preparation for a future move to university status. These twoor three institutions would be expected to begin the process of developing full-fledged subject-content departments and degrees, which would continue beyond the implementation period of thisproject. During the project period, the selected institutions would design more flexible programs toallow graduates to prepare for nonteaching jobs in selected areas. Selection of the two or three in-stitutions would be based on institutional capacity in terms of staffing (numbers of staff with S2 orS3 qualifications), facilities, and experience in program implementation. The proposals from insti-tutions would be verified through visitation and dialogue with appropriate Higher Education Con-sortium which would make final recommendations with the DGHE. This activity would be consis-tent with projects envisioned by the Government within the "new paradigm" for higher education(para. 1.5), including a quality improvement project in undergraduate education being prepared forBank financing. At negotiations, the Government provided assurances that not later than Oc-tober 1, 1996, in accordance with selection criteria acceptable to the Bank, at least two IKIPsfor future conversion to university would be selected [para. 6.1 (i)].

3.23 Preparing for accreditation. The procedures and instrumentation for institu-tional self-study and peer validation developed under the Second Teacher Training Project(Loan 2101-IND) would be refined as models for continuous self-evaluation and improve-ment for LPTKs. The procedures would also be consistent with the process of accreditationbeing developed by the BAN. A task force, with members from both public and privateLPTKs, would coordinate the institutional self-study and peer validation activities whichwould include promoting the program, refining the instruments and procedures for applica-tion in public and private LPTKs, training in self-evaluation, and training evaluation reportwriters and peer validators. It would also include holding periodic meetings with BAN. Atnegotiations, the Government provided assurances that until completion of the project, a pol-icy on zero growth in the appointment of faculty members to LPTKs would be maintainedexcept for fields of specialization in which there is a proven acute shortage of teachers; andnot later than October 1, 1996, the task force to coordinate the institutional self-study andpeer-evaluation activities would be established [para. 6.1 (j)].

3.24 Career planning. The proposed project would provide seed money to promotethe development of effective career information systems at the 10 IKIPs and two STKIPs.The employment information gathered would be sensitive to the needs of women. Proposalsto the PIU from guidance-counseling faculty members in the LPTKs would include plans forestablishing links with major local private-sector firms. Preference would be given to pro-posals which include plans for establishing a graduate follow-up system which includes in-formation of particular interest to women. The systems to be developed would include bothteaching and nonteaching career opportunities. The information system would be made avail-able to SI students early in their study programs to help them make informed choices aboutthe kinds of emphasis they would like to make in their studies.


C. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

3.25 The Director-General of Higher Education, assisted by the Director of AcademicAffairs, would have overall responsibility for the project. He would coordinate the activitiesof the proposed project with those of the ongoing Primary School Teacher DevelopmentProject (Loan 3496-IND) in respect to the involvement of LPTKs.

3.26 A Central Project Implementation Unit (CPIU) would be established in DGHE,under the Government's project unit for teacher education development (PIMPRO) and paral-lel to the PIU for the ongoing project (see Chart). The CPIU would be headed by a full-timeProject Manager who would be assisted by a Program Development Team, a Project BenefitMonitoring and Evaluation (PBME) unit (para.3.27), and management consultants. Seniorstaff specialists, including qualified women specialists, would cover the key project areas ofcurriculum development, staff development and inservice training, research and managementdevelopment, and procurement. Responsible for overall coordination of project activities andliaison with the Bank, the Project Manager would: monitor and coordinate disbursement ofthe loan; provide semiannual progress reports to the Director-General and to the Bank; pro-vide advice to Local Project Implementation Units (LPIUs) and project coordinators; submitwithdrawal applications to the Bank; arrange for timely technical audits and audits of projectaccounts; participate in the management of local and international staff development pro-grams and of project-supported studies and evaluations; and prepare the periodic, midterm,and completion reports. At negotiations, the Government provided assurances that the Centraland Local Project Implementation Units would be established with competent staff in ade-quate numbers and maintained until the completion of the project [para 6.1 (k)].

3.27 The PBME unit would undertake the monitoring and formative evaluation of theproject in accordance with the agreed performance indicators (Annex 15) and the requiredtechnical audits (para. 4.15). Additionally, the PBME would monitor closely the annual andunit costs of the project, develop the methodology for measuring the magnitude of projectbenefits, and during the project's midterm review, present an analysis of project costs andbenefits. The PBME would establish working relationships with the MOEC's national levelplanning bureau and the research and development agency (Balitbang) or contract qualifiedconsultants to assist with monitoring and evaluation, especially in regard to the measurementof project impact.

3.28 At each of the 12 IKIPs/STKIPs, LPIUs would be established. An LPIU projectofficer would be appointed, provided with the necessary support staff, and given responsibil-ity for managing project activities at his/her institution, according to rules and proceduresprovided by the Project Manager. At each of the 19 FKIPs, the rector would designate a fac-ulty dean as coordinator for the project. LPTK rectors and managers would be providedtraining in institutional planning and organizational development, early during project imple-mentation (project launch workshop) and at about midterm (preparation for REPELITA VII).The LPIU project officer and the coordinator for the project in 19 FKIPs will also work withthe Coordination Forum (Annex 9).


3.29 Technical assistance. In all project components, the technical assistance re-quirements would be satisfied largely through the provision of national consultants (485.8staff months). International consultants (18 staff months) would be recruited only in areas inwhich local expertise is limited or lacking altogether. International expert assistance is de-signed as institution building rather than "substitutive" services directly rendered as part ofimplementation activities. (The technical assistance summary is in Annex 10)

3.30 Status of project preparation. A complete inventory of project preparationdocuments including lists of science equipment and library books, the criteria for the selectionof fellowship awardees, and the TORs for project studies have been prepared by the Govern-ment and thorough discussions have been conducted with the Bank. Implementation sched-ules for each project component as well as a detailed implementation schedule for start-upoperation have been satisfactorily prepared (para. 3.3), along with TORs for consultants to beengaged during first year. The Project Manager and the four senior staff would be appointedimmediately following negotiations. The criteria for selection of awardees to the small re-search grants of the project as well as payment and accounting procedures have been estab-lished. Evidence of Governmental budgetary provision for activities to be implemented dur-ing fiscal year 1996-97 and the report verifying the extent of renovation of faculty offices andconference rooms at each teacher education institution were provided at negotiations.

3.31 Implementation schedule. The proposed project would be implemented over aperiod of five years, from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 2001. The detailed schedules of imple-mentation of all project activities (Annex 11), costs by year and component (Annexes 12),procurement (Annex 13), and disbursement (Annex 14) would serve as the basis for projectimplementation and would be updated annually by the Project Manager of the CPIU in coop-eration with the LPIU project officers and FKIP project coordinators. The closing date of theproject would be September 30, 2001.

3.32 Fund channeling. No new development budget item (DIP) would be created forthe project. Project funds for the CPIU office operation, for national workshops and interna-tional fellowships, and for the procurement of books and journals and of limited quantities ofequipment, furniture and consumable materials, and first-year funds for domestic fellowshipsand grants would be located in the DIP of the DGHE. Project funds for LPIU operating costs,local training and workshops, local journals and library books, science equipment, furniture,consumable materials, civil works, scholarships for the D-III upgrading program, and grantsfrom the second year onward would be located in the respective DIPs of the beneficiaryLPTK. Project funds for domestic fellowships for the S2 program from the second year on-ward would be located in the DIP of the target university concerned.

D. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION

3.33 Performance indicators. The project's performance indicators (Annex 15) werediscussed and agreed with the Government during negotiations. The implementation progressof the project would be assessed through monitoring activities and formative evaluation usingthe detailed performance indicators. Additionally, outcome indicators have been identified toguide development impact evaluation. The PBME (para. 3.27) would undertake the monitor-


ing and formative evaluation as well as the required technical audits (para. 4.15). The aboveindicators would also form the basis of technical supervision by the Bank. (The supervisionplan is summarized in Annex 16.)

3.34 At negotiations, the Government provided assurances that policies and proceduresadequate to enable monitoring and evaluation on an ongoing basis of the project and theachievement of the objectives thereof would be maintained in accordance with indicators sat-isfactory to the Bank and under terms of reference satisfactory to the Bank; a report would beprepared and furnished to the Bank on or about December 31, 1998 integrating the results ofthe above monitoring and evaluation activities, the progress achieved in the carrying out ofthe project during the period preceding the date of said report, and the measures recom-mended to ensure the efficient carrying out of the project and the achievement of the objec-tives thereof during the period following such date; that by April 1, 1999, or such later date asthe Bank shall request, the report would be reviewed with the Bank; and that all measures re-quired to ensure the efficient completion of the project and the achievement of the objectivesthereof would be taken, based on the conclusions and recommendations of the said report andthe Bank views on the matter [para.6.1 (1)].

3.35 Progress reports. The Government agreed to prepare semiannual progress re-ports and submit them to the Bank by March 31 and before October 1 of each year. Data fromthe detailed performance indicators for monitoring and evaluation (Annex 15) would be in-corporated in the progress report.

3.36 Annual and midterm reviews. The timing of the annual review would be coor-dinated with the annual budget preparation cycle and would involve the rectors of the IKIPsand STKIPs, deans of FKIPs, and officials of the DGHE. The midterm review and assess-ment will be in 1999. At negotiations, the Government provided assurances that not laterthan October 1 in each year, commencing October 1, 1997, and until the completion of theproject, a report on the implementation of the budget for the project for the past and currentfiscal year, together with the proposed budget for the following fiscal year would be fur-nished to the Bank for comments; and thereafter, the proposed budget for the following fiscalyear would be revised, taking into account the Bank's comments [para. 6.1 (m)].

3.37 Impact on Poverty. Recent statistical information on age, income, place of resi-dence, and school attendance show that in 1992, the largest number (from 75 to 90 percent)of 13-year olds not enrolled in junior secondary schools belong in the lowest four incomedeciles and live in rural areas. These populations are specially identified in the Government'sprogram of secondary education expansion through SMP kecils and SMP terbuka (para 1.2).In turn, this project would improve the quality of teachers for the planned expansion. Projectinterventions would therefore have a specially beneficial effect to students who are poor andliving in rural areas.

3.38 Impact on women. The proposed project actively seeks to increase the number ofqualified women in leadership positions in the education sector. Proficient female teacherswith good leadership skills would be given priority in the project's scholarship awards forupgrading teachers to bachelor's degree level (para. 3.7). Project fellowships for LPTKfaculty to master's degree studies have been weighted in favor of Indonesian universities,


partly to enable women to compete for fellowships to in-country programs which are lookedupon as more socially acceptable for Indonesian women and their families. Projectfellowships for short-term refresher courses and those for doctorate studies would set asideawards proportionate to the number of women in the teacher education faculties, to encouragequalified women to play more strategic roles in teacher education and policy formulation(para. 3.13). Priority in the award of research grants would also be given to female teacherproponents, and school-based research on girls would be a required topic (paras. 3.16-17).Women will be appointed to the project's management and monitoring units (para. 3.26).

3.39 Impact on the environment. The environmental impact of the proposed projectis expected to be neutral (environment category "C") as there would be only minor civilworks undertaken by the project. Where appropriate, environmental awareness would be in-cluded in new curricula and instructional materials used in the teacher education programs.

4. PROJECT COSTS, FINANCING, PROCUREMENT, AND DISBURSEMENT

A. PROJECT CosTs

4.1 Summary of costs The total cost of the project is estimated at US$ 87.1 millionequivalent (Rp. 195.6 billion), including contingencies and identifiable taxes and duties. Ta-bles 4.1 and 4.2 summarize the estimated costs by project component and by category of ex-penditure, respectively. Detailed project costs by year are given in Annex 12.

Table 4.1: Summary of Project Costs by Component

% TotalRo Billion USS Million % Foreign Base

Component Local ForeignTotal Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs

Improving Preservice and InserviceTeacher Education 40.5 28.1 68.6 18.1 12.5 30.6 41 40

Strengthening Linkages toSecondary Schools 7.4 4.8 12.2 3.3 2.1 5.4 39 7

Raising the Qualifications ofTeacher Education 32.6 40.3 72.9 14.5 17.9 32.4 55 42

Building Educational Research 5.2 1.3 6.5 2.3 .6 2.9 21 4Capacity

Preparing for a Wider Mandate 1.5 0.9 2.4 .7 .4 1.1 38 1Project Implementation 8.3 1.1 9.4 3.6 .6 4.2 12 5Total Base Costs 95.5 76.5 172.0 42.5 34.1 76.6 44 100

Physical Contingencies 2.8 2.7 5.5 1.2 1.2 2.4 49 3Price Contingencies 14.0 4.1 18.1 6.2 1.9 8.1 23 11

Total Costs /a 112.3 83.3 195.6 49.9 37.2 87.1 43 114

/a Includes identifiable taxes and duties estimated at US$1.7 million equivalent.


Table 4.2: Summary of Project Costs by Category of Expenditure

% TotalCategory of Ro Billion US$ Million % Foreign BaseExpenditure Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs

Civil works 5.2 2.2 7.4 2.3 1.0 3.3 30 4

Equipment 5.4 21.5 26.9 2.4 9.6 12.0 80 16

Furniture 1.2 0.5 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.7 30 1

Consumable materials 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.4 10 I

Learning and teaching materials /a 2.6 1.1 3.7 1.2 0.5 1.7 30 2

Consultant services 1.7 0.8 2.5 0.8 0.3 1.1 27 1

Studies 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 0 0

Scholarships 17.6 2.0 19.6 7.8 0.9 8.7 10 11

International fellowships 4.1 37.1 41.2 1.8 16.5 18.3 90 24

Domestic fellowships 24.5 2.7 27.2 10.9 1.2 12.1 10 16

Grants 7.5 5.7 13.2 3.3 2.6 5.9 50 8

Local training 16.5 1.8 18.3 7.4 0.8 8.2 10 11

Project operating expenses /b 7.9 0.9 8.8 3.6 0.4 4.0 10 5

Total Base Costs /c 95.5 76.5 172.0 42.5 34.1 76.6 44 100

Physical Contingencies 2.8 2.7 5.5 1.2 1.2 2.4 49 3

Price Contingencies 14.0 4.1 18.1 6.2 1.9 8.1 23 11

Total Costs /c 112.3 83.3 195.6 49.9 37.2 87.1 43 114

/a includes revisions, translations, printing, and dissemination./b includes PIU honoraria, travel expenses, office consumables, and other operational costs, e.g., meetings

and administrative support./c includes identifiable taxes and duties estimated at US$1.7 million equivalent.

4.2 Bases of cost estimates. Base costs are estimated using November 1995 prices.Civil works costs are based on average square meter renovation costs for Governmentbuildings. Science and office equipment and furniture costs are based on current prices forsimilar imported or locally available items. Learning and teaching materials costs are basedon similar items recently procured in other education projects in Indonesia. Costs forinternational and domestic consultants are in line with recent education projects forappropriately qualified experts. The unit cost for domestic fellowships is about US$4,000 perstaff-year for the master's degree programs and US$5,000 per staff-year for the doctorate


programs. Overseas training and fellowships range from US$15,000 per staff-month forshort-term training to US$25,000 per staff-year for master's programs and US$30,000 perstaff-year for doctorate programs. Operational costs are consistent with current Governmentfigures and recent education projects. Costs for short-term, in-country training vary widely,depending on the type of training and its location, and average between US$50-70 pertraining day. Scholarship grants are about US$450 per staff-year. Research grants range fromUS$45,000-100,000 per staff-year depending on the scope and the program. Costs for linkgrants are set at US$3,300 per staff-year for those with domestic partnerships andUS$123,000 per staff-year for those with foreign institutions. Project operating costs havebeen agreed between the Bank and the DGHE.

4.3 Contingency allowances. Physical contingencies (US$2.4 million) represent3 percent and price contingencies (US$8.1 million) 11 percent of baseline costs. Physicalcontingencies of 10 percent have been allowed. Price contingencies have been calculated at6.0 percent per year for local costs and 2.6 percent per year for foreign costs. No price con-tingencies have been allowed for link grants and research grants.

4.4 Foreign exchange costs. Foreign exchange costs are estimated at US$37.2 mil-lion (representing about 43 percent of total project costs) based on the following percentages:(i) overseas fellowships, 90 percent; (ii) equipment and international consultants, 80 percent;(iii) link grants, 50 percent; (iv) civil works, furniture, research grants, and learning andteaching materials, 30 percent; and (v) domestic consultants, domestic studies, scholarshipgrants, consumable materials, local training, project operating costs, 10 percent.

4.5 Taxes and duties. Identifiable taxes and duties are estimated at US$1.7 million(Rp. 3.9 billion) based on the current 10 percent value added tax on all goods and materials,and it would be financed 100 percent by the Government of Indonesia.

B. FINANCING

4.6 Financing plan. The total project cost of US$87.1 million equivalent would befinanced by a proposed loan of US$60.4 million, covering about 70 percent of total projectcosts. The Government would finance from its annual budget the remaining costs of US$26.7million equivalent, approximately 30 percent of the total project cost including taxes.

4.7 Sustainability. The GOI's commitment to its nine-year basic education plan en-sures necessary support to teacher training and for the project to sustain its impact. This hasbeen confirmed by the decision of MENPAN to allocate 25,000 new positions to MOEC forhiring in academic year 1996-97 while in other government agencies the zero-growth policyin hiring civil servants is strictly enforced. As secondary education expands in the future, thesector's capacity to absorb new graduates from LPTKs will be continuously strengthened.

4.8 Successful implementation of the project would not only strengthen the quality ofthe teacher education programs, but would also increase the cost-effectiveness and improvethe institutional capacity of the LPTKs. Under the project, quality assurance and accreditationmechanisms would ensure that the LPTKs would continuously conduct self-examination and


strive for quality enhancement. The project would improve cost-effectiveness of the LPTKsand make teacher education's link to secondary schools a permanent feature of the LPTKsthrough practice teaching and school-based action research. Both features would further en-hance the sustainability of the project impact.

Table 4.3: Financing Plan(US$ million)

Government IBRD Total IBRD Shareof Indonesia f°/)

Civil works 2.0 2.0 4.0 50Equipment (except those under 5.0 12.0 17.0 70grants), furniture, learning, teachingand consumable materials

Consultant services and studies 0.5 1.1 1.6 70Fellowship: international 0.0 19.9 19.9 100

domestic 7.4 7.4 14.8 50Scholarships 3.0 7.0 10.0 70Grants 1.8 4.1 5.9 70Local training 4.7 4.7 9.4 50Project operating costs 2.3 2.2 4.5 50Total 26.7 60.4 87.1 70

4.9 To sustain the efforts under the project, additional recurrent funds will be requiredto maintain science equipment and new facilities, continue linkages to secondary schools andpay salary increases to teaching staff trained under the project. The amount required is esti-mated to be about US$2.3 million, 3.5 percent of the recurrent expenditure of theIKIPs/STKIPs, and even lower if the FKIPs are taken into account. Indeed this amount wouldbe more than offset by the amount of cost savings realized by raising student-teacher ratio to12:1 (paras. 1.6 and 3.12), US$4.7 million per year by redeploying excess teaching staff andone-time US$7.9 million by scaling down construction of office accommodations as a resultof reduced teaching staff (Annex 17). Therefore, the project is unlikely to cause a financialburden to the Government.

C. PROCUREMENT

4.10 The loan proceeds would be used to finance procurement of goods and servicesunder all project components. Unless otherwise noted, the procurement would be in accor-dance with the "Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits (January1995), for the following:

(a) Civil works (about US$4.0 million equivalent). There would be no major newconstruction; most of the contracts would be for minor renovation or extensions.Because of the geographical dispersion of project sites, contracts for civil works


would be awarded on the basis of national competitive bidding (NCB) proce-dures acceptable to the Bank. Contracts for civil works valued at less thanUS$50,000 equivalent, up to an aggregate amount of US$1.2 million, may beprocured through a procedure similar to national shopping. Under this procedure,the small works would be procured under lump-sum, fixed-price contractsawarded on the basis of quotations obtained from three qualified domestic con-tractors in response to a written invitation.

(b) Equipment, furniture, consumable materials (US$15.0 million). The pro-curement of science equipment and a small amount of consumable materialswould be handled by local education institutions where the goods are being de-livered, after approval from the Basic Science Team, which serves as a technicaladvisory board for science equipment. A small amount of office equipment andconsumable materials would be procured by the CPIU. All goods contract pack-ages valued at or above US$200,000 would be awarded under international com-petitive bidding (ICB) procedures. Local manufacturers would be granted a 15percent domestic margin of preference. Contract packages valued less thanUS$200,000, up to an aggregate amount of US$7.6 million, would be awardedthrough NCB procedures acceptable to the Bank. Contract packages valued atless than US$50,000 and equipment of specialized nature for which NCB is notpractical, up to an aggregate limit of US$4.6 million including taxes, may bepurchased through prudent national shopping on the basis of three price quota-tions.

(c) Learning and teaching materials (US$2.0 million). This includes library booksand periodicals, research and study papers, manuals, guides produced andprinted locally, and small quantities of foreign journals and books. Printingservices would be procured through NCB while already printed books andteaching materials would be procured through national shopping procedures or,with the Bank's prior agreement, after negotiations, directly from publishers andlocal distributors or book jobbers up to an aggregate amount of US$0.8 million.

(d) Consultant services and studies (US$1.6 million). Consultants would be se-lected and contracted in accordance with the "Guidelines for the Use of Consult-ants by World Bank Borrowers and by the World Bank as Executing Agency(August 1981).

(e) International and domestic fellowships (US$34.7 million). Placement of can-didates in foreign and domestic institutions would be made on the basis of therelevance and quality of the programs offered, costs, and prior experience, ac-cording to Government administrative procedures acceptable to the Bank.

(f) Grants (US$5.9 million). Grants would be awarded on a competitive procedureacceptable to the Bank. Awards would be based on criteria for relevance of thetopic and qualifications of the parties selected, according to operating guidelinessatisfactory to the Bank. Small equipment items and consumables are allowedthrough prudent shopping under the grants (paras. 3.11 and 3.13) operatingguidelines acceptable to the Bank.


(g) Scholarships (US$10.0 million). Tuition scholarships to local universities orother training institutions would be awarded to selected secondary school teach-ers who have lower than SI qualifications by direct contracting in accordancewith the agreed criteria.

(h) Local training (US$9.4 million). Contracts for training would be awarded to lo-cal providers in accordance with the Government's administrative requirementsand procedures acceptable to the Bank.

(i) Project operating costs (US$4.5 million). Project operating expenses for thecentral and local implementation units, including honoraria, travel allowances,office consumables, and other operational costs, e.g., meetings and administra-tive support would be met, following Government administrative procedures ac-ceptable to the Bank.

4.11 Review by the Bank would be as follows:

(a) All ICB procurement would be based on the Bank's Standard Bidding Docu-ments. The Bank would carry out prior review of : (i) standard bidding docu-ments for civil works and goods contracts to be awarded under NCB procedures;and (ii) letters of invitation for consultant services, to ascertain their conformitywith Bank guidelines. The approved documents would be used as master docu-ments for all future bidding.

(b) All civil works contracts valued at or over US$500,000, if any, and goods con-tracts valued at or over US$200,000 would be subject to prior review by theBank, whereas all other contracts for civil works and goods would be subject torandom postreview. However, the first contract for civil works estimated to costthe equivalent of US$100,000 or more and the first contract for goods estimatedto cost the equivalent of $50,000 or more, would be subject to prior review.Roughly 20 percent of civil works contracts, and 25 percent of goods contractsare likely to be covered by prior review. The IKIPs which would be handling thecivil works contracting have previous experience with two Bank-financed proj-ects; the DGHE office, where the CPIU would be located, has been implement-ing several Bank-financed projects. Based on such experiences with civil workscontracting and the mandatory screening of The Basic Science Team for scienceequipment procurement, these prior review percentages are sufficient. In addi-tion, standard bidding documents would be used for both ICB and NCB proce-dures, and regular random post review would be carried out by the World BankResident Mission and supervision missions.

(c) Consultant contracts valued at or over US$100,000 for firms and US$50,000 forindividuals would be subject to prior review by the Bank. All other consultantcontracts would be subject to random post review. However, all consultants'terms of references and sole-source selection of consulting firms would be sub-ject to prior review.

(d) Fellowships would be subject to random post-review by the Bank.


(e) Annual training plans for each year would be included in the annual report fordiscussion with the Bank.

Table 4.4: Procurement Arrangements(US$ million)

Procurement Total CostProcedures including

Category of Expenditure ICB NCB Other/a Contingencies

Civil works 2.8 1.2 4.0(1.4) (0.6) (2.0)

Equipment, furniture, and consumables 2.8 7.6 4.6 /c 15.0(2.1) (5.3) (3.2) (10.6)

Learning and teaching materials 1.2 0.8 2.0(0.9) (0.5) (1.4)

Consultant services and studies 1.6 1.6(1.1) (1.1)

Fellowships 34.7 34.7(27.3) (27.3)

Grants 5.9 5.9(4.1) (4.1)

Scholarships 10.0 10.0(7.0) (7.0)

Local training 9.4 9.4(4.7) (4.7)

Project operating costs /b 4.5 4.5(2.2) (2.2)

Total 2.8 11.6 72.7 87.1(2.1) (7.6) (50.7) (60.4)

Note: Figures in parentheses are the respective amounts financed by the Bank loan./a Includes shopping, direct contracting, hiring of consultants, and administrative expenditures./b Includes PIU staff honoraria, travel expenses, office consumables, and other operating expenses

(e.g. meetings and administrative support)./c Includes PIU offices, small quantities of equipment, furniture, and consumables, but excludes

small equipment and consumables under grants.


D. DISBURSEMENT

4.12 The proposed loan of US$60.4 million equivalent would be disbursed over a pe-riod of about five years (Annex 14). The project is expected to be completed by March 31,2001, and the Loan would be closed six months later on September 30, 2001. The disburse-ment schedule is based on the implementation schedule and the disbursement profile for edu-cation projects in Indonesia. Disbursement is accelerated somewhat to reflect the establish-ment of the Special Account and the timely implementation history of DGHE. Disbursementsestimated for the first semester of FY96 are based on the proposed initial deposit into theproject Special Account. Disbursements would be made as follows:

Civil works US$ 1,800,000 50% of total expenditures

Equipment (except under grants), US$ 10,800,000 100% of foreignfurniture, and learning, teaching, expendituresand consumable materials 100% of local expenditures

(ex-factory cost)65% of local expendituresfor other items procuredlocally

Consultant services and US$ 900,000 70% of total expendituresstudies

International fellowships US$17,800,000 100% of total expenditures

Domestic fellowships US$ 6,700,000 50% of total expenditures

Scholarships US$ 6,300,000 70% of total expenditures

Grants US$ 3,800,000 70% of grant amount

Local training US$ 4,300,000 50% of total expenditures

Project operating costs US$ 2,000,000 50% of total expenditures

Unallocated US$ 6,000,000

4.13 Disbursements from the loan for the following contracts would be made againstfull documentation: (i) civil works contracts valued at or more than US$500,000 and the firstcontract valued at or more than US$100,000; (ii) goods contracts valued at or more thanUS$200,000 and the first contract valued at or more than US$50,000; and (iii) consultantservices contracts with individual consultants valued at or more than US$50,000 and consult-ing firm contracts valued at or more than US$100,000. All other disbursements would bemade against statements of expenditure (SOE) for which relevant documents would be re-tained by DGHE and made available for review as requested by visiting Bank missions. To


facilitate disbursements, a Special Account in an amount of US$4.0 million would be estab-lished at Bank Indonesia. This Special Account would be held in the name of the Directorate-General of Budget, Ministry of Finance, following established procedures. The Special Ac-count would be used for all eligible foreign and local expenditures. Replenishment to theSpecial Account would be made on a monthly basis or when 20 percent of the initial deposithas been used, whichever occurs first.

E. ACCOUNTS, AUDITS AND REPORTS

4.14 The PIU would prepare the financial report. The financial statements and financialreport for each fiscal year would be audited by independent auditors acceptable to the Bank,including a separate audit opinion on SOE expenditures. Certified copies of the financial re-port on the project for each Government fiscal year, together with the auditors' statements,would be furnished to the Bank as soon as available, but not later than six months after theend of each Government fiscal year starting March 31, 1997. DGHE would also monitor pro-gress in project implementation each semester and submit reports to the Bank by March 31and September 30 of each year. Within six months after the completion of disbursement,DGHE would submit an implementation completion report (ICR) to the Bank.

4.15 DGHE has the primary responsibility to monitor all project activities and routinemonitoring would be done through annual reviews. The PBME unit (para 3.26) would con-duct the technical audit of key project activities. The above audits would cover activities inprogress and post review of completed actions to examine whether implementation of thevarious project components are technically appropriate and to recommend corrective meas-ures, if necessary. Documents, studies, and data sets as well as an inventory of the Govern-ment's project preparation documents are listed in Annex 18. At negotiations, the Govern-ment provided assurances that technical audits of project implementation would be carriedout, in a manner acceptable to the Bank, in each fiscal year during implementation of theproject and a copy of such audit would be furnished to the Bank for comments as soon asavailable but not later than six months after the end of each such year [para. 6.1 (n)).

5. BENEFITS AND RISKS

A. BENEFITS

5.1 Research from developing countries shows a positive correlation between high qualityteachers and high student achievement. The correlation between teacher quality and studentachievement is even higher for under-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds.As Indonesia increases its intake of secondary school students through the new nine-year uni-versal basic education policy, a socially and economically diverse body of students will entersecondary schools. Higher quality teachers would be in place through this project to meet theeducational challenges they pose. Studies from Latin America show substantial rates of returnto investments in raising the quality of teachers because of subsequent higher earnings oftheir students. Evidence of the benefits of teacher development are clearly confirmed in inter-national and Indonesian educational research as presented above. Systems of monitoring and


evaluation would ensure that the project interventions translate into increased competence toteach for LPTK graduates and improved learning for secondary school students. Country dataare currently insufficient for a sensitive cost-benefit analysis. However, the project will col-lect data to assess benefits (including project impact and cost-effectiveness) through the Proj-ect Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation (PBME).

5.2 This project specifically benefits an estimated new 25,000 secondary school teachersper year, and approximately two million secondary school students. Project interventions willbenefit the professional capacity of teacher educators, leading to improvements in educationalquality as well as student achievement. The LPTK institutions would benefit through im-provements in curriculum, linkages with schools, staff development, facilities, and researchcapacity. Project interventions will benefit the professional capacity of teacher educators,leading to improvements in educational quality as well as student achievement. The followingactivities will contribute directly to these outcomes: in-country and overseas fellowships, im-proved preservice and inservice programs, linking teacher training institutions to secondaryschools, and building research capacity. The project will also benefit the student staff ratio inthe public teacher education institutions, contributing to internal efficiencies in per-pupilspending.

5.3 The project would improve cost-effectiveness of LPTKs by raising the student-teacher ratio of the LPTKs to 12:1 (paras. 1.6 and 3.12), saving US$ 4.7 million annually byreassigning, on a rotational basis, about 2,400 excess teaching staff to secondary schools andUT every year and a one-time US$7.9 million by scaling down construction of office accom-modations. This measure would also help LPTK teaching staff renew their secondary schoolteaching experience . The project will meet the external demand for teachers created as a re-sult of the expansion in junior secondary enrollment. Project interventions will enhancetraining, to enable graduates to find employment in secondary schools or elsewhere, throughtutoring during formal coursework, mentoring during practice teaching, and making informa-tion on teacher supply and demand available to their own institution, schools, and the provin-cial teacher recruitment authorities.

B. RISKS

5.4 The proposed project is subject to several risks. First are risks related to the complexinstitutional environment in which the project would be mounted. Effective coordinationamong numerous Government institutions would be required for optimal project implementa-tion, including supportive efforts by the Ministry of Finance and BAPPENAS (maintainingexpected Government expenditure levels), the DGPSE (providing access to secondaryschools as training sites and cooperating teacher-mentors), the State Ministry for Administra-tive Reform (maintaining the expected recruitment levels for new teachers), and the DGHE(strengthening management support for teacher education and instituting effective systems forpublic-private institutional accreditation). The Coordination Forum (Annex 9) which includesrepresentation of the above agencies has been revitalized to enhance a close coordination. Fi-nally, there is the risk that the attention to project targets would overshadow the more impor-tant quality improvement objectives of the project. Comprehensive monitoring mechanism


would be instituted and the project would be reviewed frequently so that the qualitative fea-tures are not only maintained but emphasized.

6. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION

A. AGREEMENTS REACHED

6.1 At negotiations, the Government provided assurances that:

(a) Not later than July 1, 1996, the curriculum teams for English, social sciences, andsubject-specific pedagogy would be established; each such team would be estab-lished in an IKIP selected on the basis of its strong English, social sciences orsubject-specific pedagogy program, respectively; and thereafter such teams wouldbe maintained until the completion of the project (para. 3.3);

(b) Not later than July 1, 1996, the LPTK teaching practicum team would be estab-lished and thereafter maintained until the completion of the project; not later thanJuly 31, 1997, the draft handbook for the implementation of the student teachingpracticum would be furnished to the Bank for comments; and, promptly thereaf-ter, the handbook would be finalized, taking into account the comments of theBank (para. 3.1 1);

(c) Not later than March 31, 1997, an action plan for the deployment of about 2,400excess LPTK faculty members to secondary schools and to UT would be preparedand furnished to the Bank for comments; such plan would include: proposed in-centives, requirements that faculty members who have not had previous experi-ence teaching at secondary school level complete a specified period of timeteaching at secondary schools, requirements that all faculty members have peri-odically required teaching experience at the secondary school level, and proposalto increase the average student/teacher ratio of the LPTKs to 12 students perteacher; and that promptly thereafter all measures required to carry out the actionplan, taking into account the Bank's comments thereon, would be taken (para.3.12);

(d) Grants would be made in accordance with the procedures and on the conditionsacceptable to the Bank (para. 3.13);

(e) Fellowships would be provided in accordance with selection criteria agreed withthe Bank (para. 3.14);

(f) All measures would be taken to ensure that teaching staff, returning from overseasand local degree programs are offered teaching positions appropriate for thetraining received (para. 3.16);


(g) Not later than October 1, 1996, the development of a test for new undergraduatedegree student assessment at LPTKs would commence; and not later than July 31,1997, the testing of such students using such test would commence (para. 3.19);

(h) Not later than June 30, 1998, an action plan for raising admission standards at se-lected IKIPs, based on the analysis of the testing of new undergraduate degreestudents at LPTKs, would be furnished to the Bank for comments; and thereafter,the action plan would be carried out, taking into account the comments of theBank on such plan (para. 3.20);

(i) Not later than October 1, 1996, in accordance with selection criteria acceptable tothe Bank, at least two IKIPs would be selected for future conversion to universitywould be selected (para. 3.22);

(j) Until completion of the project, a policy on zero growth in the appointment offaculty members to LPTKs would be maintained except for fields of specializa-tion in which there is a proven acute shortage of teachers; and not later than Octo-ber 1, 1996, the task force to coordinate the institutional self-study and peer-evaluation activities would be established (para. 3.23);

(k) The Central and Local Project Implementation Units would be established withcompetent staff in adequate numbers and maintained until the completion of theproject (para. 3.26).

(I) Policies and procedures adequate to enable monitoring and evaluation on an ongo-ing basis of the project and the achievement of the objectives thereof would bemaintained in accordance with indicators satisfactory to the Bank and under termsof reference satisfactory to the Bank; a report would be prepared and furnished tothe Bank on or about December 31, 1998 integrating the results of the abovemonitoring and evaluation activities, the progress achieved in the carrying out ofthe project during the period preceding the date of said report, and the measuresrecommended to ensure the efficient carrying out of the project and the achieve-ment of the objectives thereof during the period following such date; that by April1, 1999, or such later date as the Bank shall request, the report would be reviewedwith the Bank; and that all measures required to ensure the efficient completionof the project and the achievement of the objectives thereof would be taken, basedon the conclusions and recommendations of the said report and the Bank views onthe matter (para. 3.34);

(m) Not later than October 1 in each year, commencing October 1, 1997, and until thecompletion of the project, a report on the implementation of the budget for theproject for the past and current fiscal year, together with the proposed budget forthe following fiscal year would be furnished to the Bank for comments; andthereafter, the proposed budget for the following fiscal year would be revised,taking into account the Bank's comments (para. 3.36);


(n) Technical audits of project implementation would be carried out, in a manner ac-ceptable to the Bank, in each fiscal year during implementation of the project anda copy of such audit would be furnished to the Bank for comments as soon asavailable but not later than six months after the end of each such year (para. 4.15).

B. RECOMMENDATION

6.2 Subject to the above agreements and conditions, the proposed project is suitable for aBank loan of US$ 60.4 million equivalent to the Republic of Indonesia, for a term of 20years, including a grace period of five years, at the Bank's standard variable interest rate.


Qualifications of Public Secondary School Teachers, 1992-93Senior High School (SMA) Junior High School (SMP)

PROVINCE <=D1 D2 D3 Si =>S2 TOTAL <=SMA Di D2 D3 S1 =>S2 TOTALDKI Jakarta Raya 97 57 762 2,078 223 3,217 565 5,672 792 815 1,607 170 9,621Jawa Barat 200 71 4,598 1,784 436 7,089 2,529 13,521 6,300 2,200 6,500 381 33,431Jawa Tengah 102 229 2,552 2,618 327 5,828 1,125 13,280 7,665 2,480 10,145 545 35,240Dl Yogyakarta 55 48 295 785 113 1,296 608 2,455 1,039 256 1,295 41 5,694Jawa Timur 186 100 3,522 2,544 506 6,858 1,650 10,577 5,881 3,286 9,167 799 31,360

Dl Aceh 81 36 1,220 1,095 126 2,558 158 3,757 1,656 725 2,381 82 8,759Sumatera Utara 90 186 2,535 1,991 155 4,957 405 7,678 3,312 1,075 4,387 105 16,962Sumatera Barat 23 127 1,790 1,069 167 3,176 539 4,304 2,976 1,385 4,361 58 13,623Riau 72 63 1,109 501 67 1,812 181 2,150 1,826 260 2,086 19 6,522Jambi 30 95 446 234 55 860 116 2,132 540 53 593 18 3,452Sumatera Selatan 120 85 663 509 60 1,437 621 3,268 1,518 425 1,943 83 7,858Bengkulu 14 46 473 171 37 741 139 971 587 100 687 11 2,495Lampung 41 97 550 456 107 1,251 305 3,349 1,042 151 1,193 62 6,102

Kaimantan Barat 152 62 486 200 36 936 195 1,750 1,039 137 1,176 13 4,310Kalimantan Tengah 90 133 444 93 7 767 171 929 608 205 813 5 2,731Kafmantan Selatan 65 74 287 191 62 679 68 1,913 1,092 334 1,426 25 4,858KahmantanTimu 56 24 442 207 78 807 151 2,215 360 35 395 24 3,180

Sulawesi Utara 91 8 429 654 80 1,262 138 3,787 829 22 851 11 5,638Sulawesi Tengah 23 5 500 276 116 920 209 1,361 694 226 920 17 3,427Sulawesi Selatan 122 51 588 1,271 225 2,257 871 5,887 2,288 640 2,928 198 12,812Sulawesi Tenggara 184 61 259 119 63 686 101 f,585 651 106 757 25 3,225

Maklku 364 127 503 262 45 1,301 55 2,621 647 20 667 5 4,015Bani 80 17 460 624 39 1,220 520 2,506 1,378 160 1,538 52 6,154Nusa Tenggara Barat 51 16 756 341 47 1,211 289 1,957 974 338 1,312 26 4,896Nusa Tenggara Timur 15 4 436 321 15 791 208 1,992 756 149 905 4 4,014Irian Jaya 101 18 265 154 43 581 183 925 672 195 867 7 2,849Timorlimur 0 17 198 82 0 297 48 750 168 77 245 3 1,291

TOTAL 2,505 1,857 26,568 20,630 3,235 54,795 12,148 103,292 47,290 15,855 63,145 2,789 244,519% 4.6 3.4 48.5 37.6 5.9 100.0 5.0 42.2 19.3 6.5 25.8 1.1 100.0

Source: Statistik Persekolahan 1992-93. Pusat Informatika, MOEC. W


Profile of Public IKIPs and STKIPs

VARtABLE I KIP IKIP IKIP KIP IKIP IKIP IKIP IP STKIP IKIP IKIP STKIPMEDAN PADANG JAKARTA BANDUNG SEMARANG yoGyAKARTA MALANG SURABAYA SINGARAJA MANADO UJUNG GORONTALO

PANDANG

1. Year founded 1950 1954 1963 1954 1965 1963 1954 1964 1993 1955 1965 19632. Location city City city City Cty City City City Town City City Town

Distance from Jakarta 1,411 953 0 180 485 565 882 793 1,193 2,193 1,422 1,942(km)

3. Programs offerOd SO,S1 S0,S1,S2 SO,S1,S2 SO,S1, SO,S1 S0,S1,S2 SO,S1, S0,51. SO,S1 SOSI SO,S1 S0,S1S2,S3 S2 S3

4. intakeSi 11995) _ _ .. _ _

Number of applicants 6,191 6,792 7,628 11,076 5,033 9,249 4,788 4736 451 601 7,703 350Of which Math / Science 2,115 1,886 2,177 3,120 1,569 2,677 1,504 1,428 109 189 1,699 115Number admitted 444 232 260 255 290 344 361 320 41 62 335 18Of which Social Science 4,076 4,906 5,451I 7,956 3,464 6,572 3,284 3,308 342 412 6,004 235Number admitted 905 668 776 850 398 946 650 749 111 76 805 49seats available:

Math I science 444 232 260 255 290 344 380 320 64 160 380 120 4QSocial Science 1,157 799 920 880 420 975 650 841 189 390 835 240

SeatAvailable/Application 20.99 12.30 11.94 8.17 18.48 12.85 25.27 22.41 58.72 84.66 22.37 104.35Ratio: t

.Math / ScienceSocial Science 28.39 16.29 16.88 11.06 12.12 14-84 19.79 25.42 55-26 94.66 13 91 10213

5. Quality of lntake(1995) I *

S1 entrance scores inNational UniversitySelection Test (max. *1000):Mean score 486.12 1 511.06 1 564.67 1 574.02 1 536.89 1 572.66 1 512.04 1 520.32 1 472.85 1 437.42 1 448.99 1 431.69Minimum score 4a04.51 6425.44 468.34 9 503.81 | 455.88 7 500.35 385.56 430.51 395.55 363.61 8 337.14 | 353.55 .Maximum score |640.98 686.77 751.12 775.03 1 678.31 1 708.74 685.80 689.76 727.67 554.16 608.02 r515.11

E ~~~~(1994) ls n

Faculty members | 1,021 |9D1 884 | 1249 |77|828 8879| 335 | 933 940 210of Which Professors | 29 | 18 | 49 | 30 20 21175 3

Administrative Staff | 5C0| 636 | 637 | 994 |49 | n.a | 686 | 65 | 115 | 68 t 653 | na

IVARIABLE ff IKIP IKIP | IKIP | IKIP I IKIP | IKIP IKIP | IKIP | STKIP | IKIP I IKIP | STKIP| ~~~~~~~~~MEDAN PADANG JAKARTA |BANDUNG S EMARANG YOGYAKARTA MALANG SURAB3AYA |SINGARAJA MANADO UJUNG GORONTALO

I .... = I - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PANDANG.

(Oct. 1994) B

Si degree hOlderS 1 643 559 503 692 547 466 490 543 212 623 635 151

Master's degree hOlderS1 199 134 159 249 117 149 173 112 65 141 134 5

Doctorate degree 18 40 53 66 23 52 46 30 10 35 44 2holcders

Currently upgrading: E

S2 142 149 115 180 100 146 139 80 40 117 110 52

S3 19 19 54 62 10 15 39 26 8 17 17 0

8. Staff-Student ratioNo. of 51 students 7,247 6,237 8,079 8,547 7,355 8,755 6,751 5,388 1,828 3,846 5,958 766(1994) , (1993)No. of S5 graduates per 1,114 984 3,353 1,181 648 577 1,429 1,914 281 494 449 62 t1993)year (1994) _Total No. of students 9,000 7,814 10,658 14,049 9,231 9,399 8,376 6,277 2,398 4,872 7,110 865(SO, SI, S2, 53) I i_Staff-student ratio 8.81 8.67 12.06 11.25 11.58 11.35 9.44 7.94 7.16 5.22 7.56 4.12 t

9. Quality of research 1 m m m . * x(1993/1994)..... . . ... ,. ,

No.of Competitive 2 5 5 3 1 3 5 2 1 2 -

research accepted andfunded _ _l

No.of Women Studies 1 1_ 1 2 - 0 1 -

No. of Interdiciplinary 8 7 15 1 8 16 15 13 6 10 1research

10. AnnualBudget(in s .! . I Emillions rupiah) j i t1994/1995 I . ; .... __. ./ ._DIP (Capital cost) | 4314 34 14,489 5712 5233 4080 4305 5290 1,843 5,139 3,381 097Routine budget and self- 13,061 13,989 12,995 15,998 11,494 13,449 11,695 13,063 4,521 9,798 10,433 4,22generated income | _ _________

OPF(Maintenance and 1,099 1 161 1 497 1 973 1,394 1,285 1,287 1 236 398 894 1,014 455Operation cost)

11. Academic reputation PhysiCal Education. Math and Social Educational Language Math Linkage to Guidance &educ. Adminis. science Sciences Sciences center & education schools Counseling

educ. Moraleducation

I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

36 Annex 3: Page 1 of 2


Profile of Public FKIPs

VARIABLE SYIAH RIAU JAMBI SRIWIJAYA BENGKULU LAMPUNG SEBELAS JEMBER TANJUN PALANGKUALA MARET 0 PLUA KARAYA

1. Yearfounded 1961 1962 1963 1960 1982 1965 1976 1964 1963 1963

2. Location Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town TownDistance from 1,843 948 615 433 556 205 465 614 734 913Jakarta fk_

. _

3. Program offered So, Si So, Si So, Si So, Si So, Si So, Si So S Si So, Si So, Si

4. Intake-S-..-.-.-,i * -- rriU. -i *i-

.. _ _._ _ ___ ._._. . _. _._. _. ._,, _._._._._E _._., _ _ _, _. _._ _. _ _ ._ ... . . ..._._._Number of applicants 1,763 2,351 946 2,241 n.a. 2,527 5,291 1,435 590 471Of which Math 602 777 128 707 n.a. 717 1,725 549 57 133ScenceNumber admitted 135 190 40 144 n.a. 130 260 174 40 53Of which Social 1,153 1,574 818 1,534 770 1,810 3,566 886 533 338Sciences _Nunber admiitted 254 190 300 435 150 291 476 195 129 97Seats avalable:

Math / Sc.nce 140 190 40 144 _0 130 260 180 62 160Socal Sonces 326 315 120 171 150 291 926 210 176 170

SeatAvailableJApplicationRabo: 23.26 24.45 31,25 20.37 0 18.13 15.07 32.79 108.77 120.30

Math / Science I_IScoalScefies 28 27 20 01 14 67 11 15 19.48 16.08 349 23.70 33.02 50 30

5. Quality of Intake | .* : * -- _

51 entrance scores I t *in National University J | |Selection Test (mna i1000): IIi..~ -- ~-

Mean score 487.35 | 492.39 | 488.99 | 555.42 508.70 535.20 609.86 644.56 | 498.67 453.60Minimum score 403.80 358.30 | 407.06 | 443.97 439.37 439.14 476.44 430.96 416.76 356.49Maximum score 708 R3 7n2 S I f41 Q I 77fi f5 | 73 78 737 7i1 778 55 733 84 728 47 586 13

6. Staff -. I Csobmposition j L::L -. -Faculty members 377 218 | 162 f 238 | 204 249 437 163 226 247otw ichProfessors 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 7 0

7. Faculty A ..[ - ..7 .

Qualifications J(OcLlSt4) i. -. ...... ........ ~~~~~~~~~i....~........ .......

Si degree holders 298 184 137 172 135 192 345 139 169 220Master's degree 72 25 24 56 67 56 81 23 52 27holders IDoctorate degree 8 9 1 10 | 2 1 | 1 1holders .i |. ,,_. . . _.--*-

8. Staff-student j---7F..Ratio (193) .L... - -L.:.No.ofSo& Si 3,203 4,252 2205 2723 925 2721 6,858 1,794 1,462 2,003students (1994) |1

No,ofSo&S || 634 | 636 616 432 299 669 919 435 201 322graduates per year 80 1 3 13 1 4 1 1 1 6 Staff-student ratio ||8.50 1 19.23J |_13.61 J 11.30 | 4.53 | 10.88 | 15.69 | 10.87 L6.27 |81

37

Annex 3. Page 2 of 2

(Proflie, contfinued)

VARIABLE LAM8UNG 1MULAW TADLAK HALU 1M ARMI NUSA PATImMURA ICENDRA-MANGKURAT jARMAN j AUAO OLEO MATRA CENDANA j WASIHI U.T

i. Yearfounded 1960 1962 1981 1981 1962 1962 1956 1962 1984

2. Location Town Town Palu Town Town Town Town Town cityDistance from 937 1,348 1,593 1,762 1,060 1,916 2,382 3,767 0Jakarta (kmi) I___

3. Program offered So, Si So, Si Si So, Si So, Si So, Si So, Si So, Si So, Si

4. Intake Si (1095) --___ _ _ __ _ _

Number of applicants 1,315 686 545 3,287 943 n.a. 1,63 1,04 2,8Of which Math / 521 205 255 874 191 n.a. 566 292 n.a.Science__ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Number admitted 117 81 55 260 40 97 86 50 1,0Of which Social 794 481 290 2,413 752 485 1,065 752 n.a.Sciences _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Number admitted 196 145 52 372 102 52 127 60 583Seats available:MathltScien,ce 117 130 195 260 40 226 100 60 n.a.Socal Sciences 227 145 211 372 102 212 200 90 n.a

SeatAvailable/ApplicationRatio: 22.46 63.41 76.47 29.75 20.94 73.62 17.67 20.55 n.a.

Math I Science __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

SocaliSciences 28 59 3015 72 76 72 76 14431878 11 97 na

5. Quality of Intake . -

SI entrance scores in National University Selection Test (maxwoo0): ... - - -

Mean score f 498.67 500.97 428.74 [432.26 487.3 453.49 451.95 449.19 n.a.Minimum score 387.80 433.22 310.67 1 328.88 378.63 J 352.82 334.73 365'32 n.a.Maximum score I 6 10 682 76 586 60 I 625 23 723 58 I614 74 682 89 610 67 na

Composition

Faculty members ii 245 [ 220 216 -192 131 273 173 224 566of which, Professors 9 0 j 0 1 0 2 2 3 6

7. Faculty _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(O ct. 1094) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Master's degree 3231 15 2526 52 39 39 28Sdereholders 251420 ___ 0 1 3 8 2

Doold ter dere5 1 01 4 1 2 15holders - - - - ~-

8. Staff-student ____

Ratio (199U) II- -- _____--

No. of So &Si I 2,405 1-i,902' 2,685) 3,482 1,474 4,123 2,480 1,836 296,979students (1994/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No. of So &Si 266 459 381 545 89 195 45 302 35,594Staff-student ratio 9.47 1 8.65 1 12.43 18.04 11.25 15.00 14.17 1 8.09 n.a


Profile of Private LPTKs, 1994-o

1 Region I Region II Region If Region IV Region V Region VI Region VIl Region Vill Region IX Region X Region Xi Region XII| st Aceh Sumatera Sel. JakarlaJaa Bara Yogya. Jawa Teng. Jawa Tim. Bali Sutawesi Ut. Sumatera Bar Kahmantan Tim. Maluku TOTAL

Sumatera Ut. Lampung Nusa Teng. Barat Sulawesi Teng. Riau Kahmantan Teng Inan JayaBengkulu Nusa Teng. Timur Sutawesi Tengg. Jambi Kalimantan Sel.

Timor Timur Sulawesi Sel Katimantan Bar

No of institutions 21 12 8 22 8 15 59 17 25 12 1 0 2 211STKIPs 7 7 4 8 1 1 25 6 17 6 3 1 86IKIPs 2 0 1 0 5 4 10 3 0 0 1 0 26FKIPs 12 5 3 14 2 10 24 8 8 6 6 1 99

No of faculties 21 5 7 14 14 23 40 21 8 6 9 1 169

No. of deparlments 86 34 24 58 27 56 252 62 60 38 20 6 723

No. of programs 143 46 29 94 37 78 421 80 78 65 24 8 1,103

No of students ('94)No. of applicants 2,182 1,999 2,309 4,839 2,395 5,409 11,111 2,273 2,200 , 2,097 969 247 38,030

So program : 201 191 190 1,164 318 374 460 553 205 488 0 0 4,144 4Si program: 1,982 1.808 2,119 3,675 2,077 5,035 10.651 1,720 1,995 1,609 969 247 33,887

No. admitted: 1,527 1,758 1,620 4,040 1.837 4.846 7,833 1,754 2,104 1,480 826 232 29,857 |So program: 192 136 136 1,006 255 266 352 531 205 110 0 0 3,189 ASI program: 1,335 1,622 1,484 3,034 1,582 4,580 7,481 1.223 1,899 1,370 826 232 26.668

Adm.Iapplic. ratio 70.0% 87.9% 70.2% 83.5% 76.7% 89.6% 70.5% 77.2% 95.6% 70.6% 85.2% 93.9% 80 9%

Enrollment ('94): 12,417 10,583 11.758 21,966 11,511 23,781 53,106 9,289 13,729 6,996 6,160 819 182,115So program: 1,175 503 1,234 4,529 1,109 835 5,248 2,031 845 918 0 0 18,427S1 program: 11,242 10,080 9,524 16,437 10,402 22,946 47,858 7.258 12.884 6,078 6,160 819 161,688

Noofgraduates('94) 1,915 1,184 1,040 3,274 1,198 3,263 11.917 1,264 1,551 1,225 757 87 28,675So program: 480 24 288 665 0 52 1,241 435 63 316 0 0 3,564S1 program: 1,435 1,160 752 2.5a9 1,198 3,211 9,676 829 1,488 909 757 87 24,091

No.ot fac. members 1,272 834 739 2,455 565 1,278 4,196 1.221 1.564 724 486 80 15,414Permanent. 643 383 199 1,011 308 727 1,977 573 557 223 73 52 6,726Honowary: 629 451 540 1,444 257 551 2,219 648 987 501 413 28 8.668

Student-staf ratio 9.76 12.69 14.56 8.54 20.37 18.61 12.66 7.59 8.78 9.66 12 67 10.24 12.18

Annex S 39

INDONESIA

Secondary School Teacher Development Project

Academic Qualifications of Public LPTK Teaching Staff, 1994

Teacher Maths & Science (MIPA) Faculty / Department All faculties I departmecntsEducation Qualif'ication Currently Percent Qualification Currently PercentInstlFac. Total ( completed) Upgrading S2 + S3 Total (completed) Upgrading S2 + S3

_IKP__KIP Staf -SI1 S2 53 S2 S3 Now Fut Stf Si S2 S3 S2 53 Now Fut

Medan 216 99 51 1 60 5 26% 5 40/9 1021 643 199 [7 143 19 23% 37%Padang 159 88 33 3 34 1 23% 45% 901 542 151 40 149 19 23% 40%Jakarta 109 48 25 7 24 5 34% 56% 884 519 159 37 115 54 28% 41%Bandung 191 80 46 10 41 14 37% 44% 1249 698 249 60 1S0 62 25% 44%Semarang 162 92 38 5 26 1 27% 43% 797 547 117 23 100 10 19% 31%Yogya 138 31 53 7 46 I 44% 78% 828 428 187 52 146 15 31% 49%Malang 189 53 64 10 58 4 41% 72% 887 457 204 48 139 39 33% 48%Sumabaya 145 65 42 6 24 8' 39% 55% 791 543 112 30 80 26 21% 31%ST.Sing 100 56 17 2 23 2 21% 44%/ 333 210 65 10 40 8 25% 37%Manado 125 73 38 4 9 1 34% 42% 933 620 141 35 117 20 21% 34%UjPand 174 97 36 7 32 2 26% 44% 940 635 134 44 110 17 21% 32%ST.Gor 87 64 3 0 20 0 3% 26% 210 151 S 2 52 0 3% 28%IKIP&STKIP 1795 846 446 62 397 44 28 53% 9774 5993 1723 398 1371 289 22 39

Urnsyiah 107 66 14 0 25 2 15% 38% 377 248 62 8 50 9 21% 34%Sriwijaya 65 32 21 2 8 2 38% 51% 238 151 53 10 21 3 28% 37%Bengkulu 84 28 33 1 16 6 48% 67% 204 80 67 2 42 13 40% 61%Riau 62 47 9 2 4 0 18% 24% 218 159 25 9 25 0 1 60% 27%Lampung 5 1 28 8 0 14 i 18% 45% 249 145 SO I 47 6 23% 42%Jambi 65 36 8 I 19 I 15% 45% 162 96 1 7 1 41 7 15% 41%Solo 75 33 16 3 18 5 32% 56%1 437 272 60 II1 73 21 21% 38%Jember 67 42 II1 0 12 2 19% 37% 163 122 21 1 17 2 15% 25%LamMang 66 42 5 0 19 0 8% 36% 245 167 30 8 38 2 16% 32%Palangk 66 5 1 5 0 9 1 9% 23% 247 195 23 0 25 4 11% 21%Mulawar 75 48 9 I 1 7 0 13% 36% 220 152 30 5 32 I 16% 31%Halu0l 81 59 9 0 12 2 14% 28% 192 133 23 0 34 2 13% 31%Tadul 105 94 3 0 8 0 3% 10% 216 176 13 1 24 2 7% 19%Nuscen 54 36 5 0 13 0 9% 33% 273 172 40 4 47 12 21% 38%Mataramn 50 19 5 1 22 3 18% 62% 131 67 18 2 37 8 21% 50%TanjungPr 38 2 1 6 1 I11 1 21% 50% 226 134 47 5 35 5 25% 400%Pattim 46 30 8 0 7 1 17% 23% 173 116 39 I 1 7 0 23% 33%Cendrawasih 63 38 o1 0 14 I 16 37% 224 153 38 2 30 1 18% 32%FKIP 1220 750 185 12 248 28 16 39% 49 2738 656 71 635 98 17 135%

All LPTK 3108 159663164 5 133 971 8088 2293 4 20 384 20 37%

Source: Project Proposal, MOEC.

40 Annex 6. Page 1 of 8

INDONESIA


Economic Analysis

This annex, following the East Asia and Pacific Region's checklist on economicanalysis of education projects, summarizes the arguments and evidence on theeffectiveness and sustainability of the proposed project under the following topics:Indonesia's education priorities, analysis of project alternatives, the project's fiscal impact,economic benefit, and institutional soundness. Paragraph numbers and annexes cited hererefer to those of the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR).

Are the Government's priorities in education appropriate?

To improve its competitiveness in international markets, principally in low-cost,labor-intensive industries, Indonesia must be able to draw upon a well-educated and easilytrainable work force. Educational policy for the past two decades has therefore focused onthe provision of basic education at the primary level in order to upgrade the skills of thegeneral population and make them more employable. The result has been a remarkable,near-universal enrollment in primary schools. In 1994, the Government startedimplementing obligatory basic education from six to nine years in order to raiseeducational levels needed for the training of a more highly skilled workforce demanded bythe high growth economy.

Indonesia's policies which emphasize basic education are well crafted, and thecountry's objectives are in accord with international research evidence on the benefits ofbasic education and its ability to contribute to economic development. Stronger groundingin educational fundamentals also enables individuals to continue to develop their ownskills, productive capacities, attitudes and to pursue better career options in an evolvinglabor market. Basic education also benefits society through indirect effects on health,fertility, and life expectancy'. As a result of the decision to expand basic education, juniorsecondary enrollment is expected to expand significantly, and more teachers will beneeded.

'Psacharopoulos, G., and M. Woodhall (1985), Educationfor Development: An Analysis of investmentChoices (New York: Oxford University Press).

Annex 6: Page 2 of 8 41

What are the International experiences in teacher development?

A World Bank review of 32 studies2 concluded that trained teachers make a significantdifference in student achievement in developing countries. Among the teacher-relatedfactors which positively correlated with student achievement are teacher qualifications,teachers' classroom experience, years of education, and teachers' level of skill orknowledge. One Indonesian research3 cited in the review found that upgrading teachers'skills and knowledge leads to both significant and cost-effective improvements in studentoutcomes. Research on public secondary school teachers in neighboring Thailand andMalaysia also shows positive correlation between high quality teachers and high studentachievement. The correlation is even higher for underachieving students fromdisadvantaged backgrounds4. In addition, studies from Latin America show substantialreturns to investments in raising the quality of teachers in terms of student's length ofschooling completed and subsequent higher earnings5.

Teacher education as a critical alternative. When governments stretch theirscarce educational resources to cover growing student enrollments, per-pupil spendingshrinks, impairing the quality of education. Over the last 30 years, enrollment hasexpanded more rapidly than investments in education. Under these circumstances, a well-trained teacher can be the most valuable and often most cost-effective investment in theeducational system that a government can make6. Compared to all other school inputssuch as classroom space, textbooks, equipment, and teaching materials, teachers areunique because of their ability to maximize the potential of other inputs and utilize themactively to enhance students' learning'.

Complementarity of teacher education with other educational inputs. Theother principal inputs for expanding secondary education and improving quality (facilities,textbooks, and materials) are being provided. Student places for the nine-year basiceducation program would be provided through the series of province-based secondary

2Husen, T., L.J. Saha, and R. Noonan (1978), Teacher Training and Student Achievement in LessDeveloped Countries (World Bank Staff Working Paper 310, Washington, D.C.).

3Nasoetion, N., A. Djalil, 1. Musa, and S. Soelistyo (1976), The Development of Education EvaluationModels in Indonesia (Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning).

4Farrell. J. and J.B. Oliveira, eds. (1993), Teachers in Developing Countries: Improving Effectiveness andManaging Costs (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank).

5Behrman, J.R., and N. Birdsall (1983), "The Quality of Schooling: The Standard Focus on Quantity Aloneis Misleading," American Economic Review 73 (5): 92846.

6Avalos, B., and W. Haddad (1981). A Review of Teacher Effectiveness Research in Africa, India, LatinAmerica, Middle East, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. Synthesis ofResults (Ottawa, Canada: InternationalDevelopmnent Research Center).

7Farrell, J.P., and J. B. Oliveira, eds. (1993), Teachers in Developing Countries: Improving Effectivenessand Managing Costs (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank).


education projects currently being developed also with Bank assistance. Textbooks andlearning materials, the input consistently associated with improvements in studentachievement, are being provided through the Book and Reading Development Project(Loan No. 3887-IND). This project, which would provide training for teachers, wouldcomplete the provision system. Research shows that while certain individual inputs raiseachievement better than others, where resources are sufficient, optimal results are broughtabout by the combined effects of educational inputs'.

What investment alternatives were considered, and what criteria were used to choosesome and reject others?

Interventions selected for the project were reviewed and assessed in terms of theirefficiency and effectiveness based on international and Indonesian evidence on teacherquality as described below:

Investing in private teacher education institutions. Although there are 211 privateteacher education institutions in Indonesia that produce about 29,000 secondary schoolteachers yearly, the training in those institutions is considered far inferior to the qualitylevels achieved by the public sector institutions. To upgrade instructional capability to thelevels that would enable those institutions to prepare teachers for the expanded nine-yearbasic education would require financial, technical, and development time investmentsunacceptable to the Government which aims at reaching their expansion targets in 10-15years. In contrast, the 31 public institutions (12 stand-alone teacher education institutesand 19 education faculties or colleges affiliated with public universities) which produceabout 20,000 teachers yearly, have better facilities, teachers and resources as well ashigher standards of admission and self-assessment. They are therefore in a much betterposition to undertake the curricular, management, and other institutional 'te-tooling" toimprove teacher training for the Government's planned expansion. In fact, selected publicinstitutions are already in the process of institutional improvement: reforms in science andmathematics teaching are being initiated from Bandung (para. 3.3), and a new preserviceeducation program, mostly at public training institutions for primary school teachers, hasbeen developed by the Bank-financed Primary School Teacher Development Project (LoanNo. 3496-IND). Therefore, the alternative to fund private LPTKs was rejected for thecurrent project.

Attracting quality candidates to teaching. To keep up with the rapid expansion ofbasic education, many developing countries, particularly in Asia, have 'hnass-produced"teachers, frequently sacrificing quality of training to obtain the needed numbers of teachersin abbreviated training time. The historic high regard in Asia for teaching has thus beeneroded, partly as a result of the 'Watering down" of teacher training standards, mostly bymore lucrative opportunities in the productive sectors. Teaching jobs around the world arefailing to attract the more academically qualified students not only because of the low

8 Heyneman, S.P., and D. Jamison (1980), "Student Learniing in Uganda: Textbook Availability and OtherFactors," Comparative Education Review 24 (2): 206-220.


social status of the profession but also because of unattractive entry level salaries and poorworking conditions especially in the rural areas. In China and the Philippines, wherenational entrance examinations are required for admission to university, lower scoringexaminees tend to apply to teachers colleges, where they are more likely to be accepted.Similar behavior has been observed in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand,Malaysia, and Korea. Interventions for the improvement of quality of training would seemsensible, in order to attract bright students to the profession. Larger issues ofcompensation and working conditions, admission standards into LPTKs were reviewedand assessed during project preparation as follows.

Raising teachers' salaries. In developed countries such as the United States, it isargued that salaries are the most important determinant of teacher quality. Salaryschedules are designed to reward years of formal education and degrees earned,experience and certification. For financially strapped developing countries, however,significantly raising teacher salaries relative to those of other professions is not a realoption9 . It was assessed during preparation that for Indonesia which tie the teacher salaryscale to certain grades of the uniform salary schedule of the civil service, it would beunrealistic (at this time) to expect that teachers' salaries can be improved withoutdisrupting those of the rest of the national civil service system.

Provide inservice training only. An option for raising teacher quality in countrieswhere salary scales for teachers are inseparable from those of civil servants is to recruitfrom the less well-educated and invest more in inservice training, using a variety ofprograms including on-campus training at teacher training institutions, distance education,seminars and programs to upgrade the quality of existing teachers. It was judged that thisoption, while cost-effective for the short-term, sacrifices the long-term sustainability ofquality teacher training particularly during a national expansion of secondary education.Including preservice programs (more efficiently provided) and inservice programs in theproject interventions would be a more cost-effective choice for Indonesia's current stagein secondary school teacher development.

Raising admission requirements. One way to improve the quality of teachers is tosimply raise the academic requirements for entrance to the teacher training institutions.This option needs to be approached with caution. Leaders in Korea, a country with ahighly competitive system of entrance examinations, are beginning to question whethertheirs is really the best method of recruiting teachers, since tests fail to detect importantaspects of teacher aptitude such as personality and commitment to a teaching career.Thailand has established a three-part entrance test that covers subject knowledge, attitudetoward the teaching profession, and general knowledge. Malaysia has a two-partexamination that screens candidates through a scholastic aptitude test and requires thesuccessful takers to undergo an interview. In Indonesia, the entrance examination scores

9 Lockheed, M.E., and A. Vespoor, eds. (1994), Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries(Washington, D.C.: The World Bank).

Annex 6: Page 5 of 844

of applicants to teacher training are so low (betraying inadequate preparation at secondaryschool) that simply raising the cut-off mark for admission would merely eliminate mostapplicants who are otherwise trainable. Nevertheless, a few public teacher educationinstitutions are sought by students for excellence in selected fields, so that competition foradmission to those institutions has become very keen. The project supports the alternativeof raising admission standards incrementally, improving the quality of student intake overtime, without risking any rash elimination of potential pools of candidates.

Relating classroom experience to teacher training. Research suggests that thelength of teaching experience is a key teacher characteristic determining studentachievement. Indonesia teacher training candidates need more practical teachingexperiences with mentor classroom teachers, and less lecturing by faculty who have hadlittle or no classroom teaching experience. Research in the Middle East and in parts ofAfrica have found that experienced teachers are more participatory and less authoritarianin their teaching practices. Other research show that student teachers come closer to thepatterns of teachers with more experience in the classrooms at exit compared to studentteachers who practice with less experienced teachers. The optimum level of classroomexperience for teacher trainers ranges from 10 to 20 years"0. This option has been selectedfor the proposed project as part of improving preservice teacher education.

Are the selected alternatives sensitive to effective teaching practices?

The proposed project invests in a new mix of teacher education inputs, includingthose critical to the training of teachers for the expanded nine-year basic educationprogram: curriculum development and strengthening the teacher education institution'slinkage to secondary schools. Among the Govern ment's innovative approaches to increasethe participation rate in secondary education are the SMP kecil (very small juniorsecondary schools established to serve remote rural areas) and SMP terbuka (juniorsecondary instruction through distance education to reach those living in areas where thepopulation is sparse and widely dispersed). Teaching for these types of schools requiresteacher flexibility with regard to subject matter assignments and instructional techniques,areas not adequately covered in the current teacher education curriculum which prescribestraining along rigid, disciplinary lines. The proposed project would develop curricula insubject areas and in pedagogy that would be responsive to the new educational demands.

At the same time, the proposed project would assist the teacher educationinstitution to create and strengthen linkages with secondary schools. The faculty of theteacher education institution would collaborate with secondary school teachers inconducting research about secondary education in their own schools, send student-teachers to secondary schools for teaching practicum, and the faculty themselves wouldperiodically renew their teaching experience in secondary schools. These activities wouldenable the 'teacher producers" to 'know their market," i.e., become rooted in the realities

10 Lockheed, M.E., and A. Vespoor, eds. (1994).

Annex 6. Page 6 of 8 45

and be responsive to the needs of secondary schools in their area, for which they prepareteachers.

Is the investmenr fiscally wise? Are its fiscal implications bearable?

Efficiency gains and sustainability. The Government has decided to raise thestudent-staff ratio at public teacher education institutions from its current average of9.9:1 to the university average of 12:1. Full implementation of this policy would free upto 2,400 teacher educators who, on a rotational basis, would be asked to return tosecondary schools as teachers or to serve as tutors in the field for the various distanceeducation courses of the Open University (UT). The savings to the national educationsystem for not having to hire additional secondary school teachers or distance educationtutors is estimated at US$4.7 million per year. In addition, with the project, the rotation ofexcess teaching staff would preclude the need for additional office and conference space atteacher education institutions, the provision of which would cost about US$7.9 million.The savings would be greater because corresponding maintenance and operating costswould also be reduced. On the other hand, the incremental recurrent costs (salaries fornew staff, operating expenditures, and building and equipment maintenance) to begenerated by the project is about US$2.3 million, equivalent to only 3.5 percent of theannual recurrent budget of the education ministry's higher education directorate-general.(The assumptions and calculations of the above are discussed in (Annex 17.)

Cost recovery. The fee policy for the teacher training system is sound. Teachereducation institutions charge tuition and other fees and are able to generate modestincomes from consulting and similar service contracts. Public teacher educationinstitutions are able to recover about 13 percent of their total annual budget, only slightlylower than the 17 percent average recovery of all higher education institutions inIndonesia. As a percentage of annual total recurrent expenditure, however, the feescharged by public teacher education institutions averaged 19 percent over the last fiveyears (1991-95), the same level estimated for all of higher education in 1994.

What economic returns can be expectedfrom this project?

Cost-benefit analysis. Evidence of the benefits of teacher development are clearlyconfirmed in international and Indonesian educational research as presented above. Lackof Indonesian data has prohibited a cost-benefit analysis to date; however, the project willcollect data during its life to assess benefits (including project impact and cost-effectiveness) through the Project Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation (PBME), a subunitof the central Project Implementation Unit (PIU).

Rates of return. Indonesia is joining East Asia's high-growth countries that investheavily in both primary and secondary education in an effort to enhance the quality oflabor. While circumstances in each country differ, the general pattern has been that ineconomies with less than universal basic education, rates of return are greatest for primaryeducation, followed by secondary education. The social rates of return to secondary


schools in Asia is approximately 13 percent"1. Other analyses"2 show that economies withuniversal primary education that have undergone rapid growth tend to have a higher rateof return to secondary than to primary education. The social rates of return to juniorsecondary education in Indonesia have been estimated at 11-14 percent in urban areas,higher than the benchmark of 10 percent return for capital investment. These rates forurban areas imply that the returns in rural areas may be even higher'3. During the courseof implementation of the proposed project, data will be collected for calculating the ratesof return to teacher education.

Internal efficiency. Project interventions will raise the professional capacity ofteacher educators, leading to improvements in educational quality as well as studentachievement. The following activities will contribute directly to these outcomes: in-country and overseas fellowships, improved preservice and inservice prograrns, linkingteacher training institutions to secondary schools, and building research capacity. Theseinterventions are positively correlated with improved student performance'4 . The projectwill also raise the student staff ratio in the public teacher education institutions,contributing to internal efficiencies in per-pupil spending.

External efficiency. The project will meet the external demand for teachers createdas a result of the expansion in junior secondary enrollment. Project interventions willenhance training, to enable graduates to find employment in secondary schools orelsewhere, through tutoring during formal coursework, mentoring during practiceteaching, and making infornation on teacher supply and demand available to their owninstitution, schools, and the provincial teacher recruitment authorities.

Are the project's institutional arrangements sound?

The Government's higher education directorate-general of the education ministryhas the requisite management experience, having managed many education developmentprojects, including 10 World Bank-supported projects in postsecondary education, four ofthem in teacher education, since 1976. Currently, there are three Bank-financedpostsecondary projects under active implementation, including the Primary SchoolTeacher Development Project (Loan No. 3496-IND). For the proposed project, a central

" The World Bank (1995), Priorities and Strategiesfor Education: A World Bank Review (WashingtonD.C.: The World Bank).

12 Balbin, J. (1991), "Returns to Education: Further Analysis of Cross-Country Data," Economics ofEducation Review 10(3):253-58; Schultz, T.P. (1993), "Investments in Schooling and Health of Women and Men:Quantities and Return," Journal ofHuman Resources 28 (4): 694-734; _ (1994), "Integrated Approaches to HumanResource Development" (Human Resources Development and Operations Policy Vice Presidency), The World Bank,Washington, D.C.

13 "Indonesia Secondary Education: East Java/NTT Project" (1995), Staff Appraisal Report (white cover,December 18, 1995), The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

14 Heyman S.P., J.P. Farrell, and M.A. Sepulveda-Stuardo (198 1),"Textbooks and Achievement inDeveloping Countries: What We Know", Journal ofCurriculum Studies 13 (3): 277-46.

Anex 6: Page 8 of 8 47

project implementation unit would be established at the directorate-general, and smalllocal implementation units would be organized at the public teacher educationinstitutions (paras. 3.25-27).

To address the issue of teacher demand and supply determination, which hasserious implications on teacher education, recruitment, and deployment, the Govemmenthas established a Coordinating Forum that would bring together the variousgovernmental authorities involved, principally the directorates-general of primary andsecondary and of higher education. A Joint Secretariat will be established with an actionplan for ensuring that secondary schools, teacher education institutions, provincial-leveleducation authorities are brought into the dialogue (Annex 9).

Other analyses

The proposed project's consistency with the Country Assistance Strategy forIndonesia is discussed in (paras. 2.6-7). The project's potential for poverty alleviation isdiscussed in (para. 3.37); gender sensitivity in para. 3.38; and neutral impact on theenvironment in (para. 3.39). Performance indicators for monitoring and evaluation havebeen developed in detail (Annex 15).

48 Annex 7

INDONESIA


BANK GROUP-FINANCED EDUCATION AND TRANING PROJECTS

Loan/ Year of Year of AmountCredit Board Actual (less cancellations) a

Numnber Approval Closing Projects Agency IBRDIDA

--- US$ million --

Projects with MOEC219 1970 1976 First Education MOEC lb 4.5387 1973 1981 Third Education MOEC 13.5

1237 1976 1981 Fourth Education MOEC 24.11433 1977 1984 First Teacher Training MOEC 17.81486 1977 1984 Nonfornal education MOEC 8.3869 1978 1985 Polytechnic MOEC 49.0

1904 1980 1987 First University Development MOEC 43.12101 1982 1990 Second Teacher Training MOEC 79.12102 1982 1988 Second Textbook MOEC 24.92290 1983 1990 Second Polytechnic MOEC 106.02355 1983 1990 Second Nonformal Education MOEC 43.02472 1984 1990 Secondary Education and Mgmt Training MOEC 76.62547 1985 1993 Second University Development MOEC 147.02944 1988 1993 Higher Education Development MOEC 140.33158 1990 -- Second Secondary Education and Mgmt MOEC 154.23311 1991 - Second Higher Education Development MOEC 150.03431 1991 -- Third Nonformal Education MOEC 59.63448 1992 -- Priniary Education Quality Improvement MOEC 37.03496 1992 -- Primary School Teacher Development MOEC 36.63754 1994 -- University Research for Graduate Education MOEC 58.93887 1995 -- Book and Reading Development MOEC 132.5

Subtotal of Projects with MOEC 1339.0 67.0

Projects with Other Ministries288 1972 1978 Second Education (Agriculture Training) MOA Ig 6.3

1692 1979 1985 Second Agricultural Training MOA 34.72258 1983 1988 Public Works Manpower Development MOPW Id 29.82341 1983 1992 Third Agricultural Training MOA 62.92599 1985 1993 Science and Technology Training MORT Ic 93.02705 1986 1995 Manpower Development and Training MOM Lf 58.12940 1988 1995 Accountancy Development MOF Ig 113.02992 1988 - Tree Crop Human Resource Development MOA 18.43112 1988 - Public Works nstitution Dev. & Training MOPW 36.13134 1989 -- Professional Human Resources Development BAPPENAS 117.5

BPPT lh, MOF3721 1994 -- Skills Development MOM 27.73825 1995 -- Professional Human Resources Development II BAPPENAS 69.0

BPPT, MOFSubtotal of Projects with Other Ministries 660.2 6.3

GRAND TOTAL l22Z 1h

La bThe amount less cancellation" applies only to the projects which were closed (with 'Year of Actual Closing').The amount for other ongoing projects was taken from the Staff Appraisal Reports.

Lb MOEC - Ministry of Education and Culture.IL MOA - Ministry of Agriculture. if MOM - Ministry of Manpower.Id MOPW - Ministry of Public Works. Lg MOF - Ministry of Finance.Lc MORT - Ministry of Research and Technology. lh BPPT - Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology.

Annex 8: Page ) of 4 49


Strengthening Linkages Between LPTKs and Secondary Schools

1. The study teams which visited teacher education institutions abroad in 1995 foundthat there are strong links between the institutions and the schools. Teacher educatorsroutinely have had teaching experience in schools prior to teaching at the university leveland in some instances are required to update their experience every five years by spendingas much as a year as a classroom teacher. The pre-service teacher education programsinclude early field-based experiences connected to courses throughout the pre-servicestudent's program and it is not unusual for a teacher candidate to spend several months inschool settings prior to the student teaching experience (which is at least one semesterfull-time in length and in some cases a fuill year).

2. Often teacher education programs are collaboratively designed by school teachersand college faculty with each group having equal input into the teacher educationcurriculum. School teachers may teach courses in the preservice teacher educationprogram as well as in the in-service programs. In turn, teacher educators are active in theschools as researchers, in the in-service teacher education programs, and in theprofessional deveiopment activities for school renewal.

3. In Indonesia such exchanges between schools and LPTKs are rare. For theimprovement of the secondary schools themselves as well as the improvement of theteacher education programs at LPTKs, it is important that supportive, cooperativerelationships be developed between the schools and LPTKs. Activities supported underthe project would include: (i) a study team to design a program for implementing a onesemester student teaching experience in LPTKs, (ii) small grants to support partnershipsbetween LPTKs and schools, (iii) grants to support school-based action research, and (iv)support for establishing partnerships between an LPTK and a foreign institution which hasa strong field-based teacher education program.

Study Team

4. The PIU would identify a five (5) member team composed of three representativesfrom an LPTK which has a strong student teaching program and two (2) members fromtwo other LPTKs.

5. The study team would be responsible for formulating concrete suggestions for apractical plan to implement a one semester, full-time student teaching experience inLPTKs. The study team would address issues such as the number of classes the studentteachers would be responsible for teaching each day, how the student teacher is oriented


to the school, the selection of cooperating teachers, incentives for cooperating teachers,number of formal observations by LPTK supervisor, incentives for LPTK staff, studentteaching experience at two levels (one at SMP and one at SMA), and guidelines forconferences among the student teacher, cooperating teacher and LPTK supervisor. This isnot an inclusive or exclusive list of suggestions. The main objective of the study team is tocome up with a concrete plan for a full-time, one semester student teaching experiencethat can be implemented under normal and sustainable conditions independent of outsidefunding sources.

6. To accomplish the task, the study team would establish a meeting plan and workschedule which would include visits to schools to obtain input from administrators andteachers. They would also be responsible for sharing the plan with LPTKs, Kanwils, andteachers at regional meetings to obtain feedback for revision. The final product would bea handbook for the student teaching experience which would be distributed to all LPTKs.

Suggested Activities:* correspondence to the LPTKs and Kanwils from appropriate Directorate describing

the purpose of the study teamv selection of team members* field visits to LPTKs, Kanwils, SMPs, and SMAs for input* drafting handbook* regional meetings to share draftX revision for field trials• field trials for handbook* regional meetings to share feedback on trial handbook* revision and dissemination of handbook

Small Grants to Facilitate LPTK-School Linkages

7. Grant funds would be available to 31 LPTKs and partnership schools based on acollaborative proposal submitted by the partnership. The grants would facilitate theimplementation of programs which focus specifically on improving field-based experiencesfor pre-service teachers conducted by LPTKs and schools. Proposals would be expectedto include, but not be limited to, activities such as: how to select and train supervisingteachers; systems for field experiences prior to student teaching; evaluating and gradingstudent teachers; and, developing conferencing skills. A required criteria for a fundedproposal is parity between the LPTK and the school(s). The Director General of HigherEducation and the Director General of Primary and Secondary Education (the Director ofGeneral Secondary School in particular), would invite all LPTKs and Kanwils to exploredeveloping LPTK-school linkages and potential LPTK-school partnerships.Representatives from the potential partnerships would be invited to a proposal writingworkshop. Proposals would be developed by the partnerships and submitted to the PIUfor selection. An important aspect of successful proposals would be mechanisms for howthe partnership would be sustained after grant funds have expired. At least one of the 31

Annex 8: Page 3 of4 51

grant proposals (more than one if appropriate) would be specifically for developing a validevaluation system for the assessment of student teaching performance which would beused under Quality Assurances (Component 4).

Suggested Activities:

* DGHE shares small grant plan with DGPSE* invitation to LPTKs, Kanwils, schools to form partnerships* small funds (from grant funds) provided to LPTKs/Kanwils to explore partnerships* partnerships invited to proposal workshop* proposal workshop* proposal development by LPTK-school partnership* proposals submitted to PIU for selection* grants awarded to partnerships* monitoring and evaluation* publication/sharing of results

School-based Action Research

8. There has been little school-based action research collaboration between LPTKfaculty and secondary school teachers. Small grants would provide funds to lecturer-teacher teams in the conduct of school-based action research. The program would run forthree years, with awards going to five teams per year, with preference to those focusingon the SMP level. Grants would be for one year, with the possibility of extending to asecond year. Each year would have a theme:- year I secondary school students' learning problems, errors and misconceptions;D year 2 problems and issues related to student teaching; and3 year 3 problems and adjustments of novice teachers during induction years.

9. All proposals would be required to identify teacher partners for whom important,substantive research and action roles are specified. Proposals would be encouraged fromlecturers who are involved in their LPTK-school linkage program. Support would beprovided for the publication of research results in international or local journals so thataction research methods and findings would be widely disseminated and used. Thisprogram would be managed by a Research Management Unit set up at one of the LPTKssimilar to the research management unit established under the Primary SchoolDevelopment Project.

Suggested Activities:* foreign and national consultants for drafting TOR (guidelines for proposals)* training and proposal workshops* selection of recipients* funds for research* mid-term workshops


* monitoring* local workshops* regional workshops* publication facilitation

10. These activities would be repeated for a total of 3 cycles, 5 school-based actionresearch proposals each year for a total of 15.

Partnerships with Foreign Institutions

11. To further strengthen experienced-based teacher education programs and linkagesto schools, LPTKs would have the opportunity to form a partnership with a foreigninstitution which has well established, collaborative teacher education programs withschools. The project would support eight partnerships which include, but not be lirnitedto, activities such as the exchange of faculty between institutions, short study tours forfaculty and school teachers in partnership institutions, short study tours for faculty andschool teachers in partnership institutions, seminars, and workshops.

Suggested Activities:- PIU develops guidelines for partnerships* DGHE informs LPTKs of partnerships and guidelines* meetings to explain proposals* small funds given to LPTKs to negotiate partnership and write proposal which would

include a formal agreement between LPTK and proposed foreign institution- proposals submitted to PIU for selection* funds to successful LPTKs for implementation* monitoring by PIU

Annex 9: Page I of 6 53


Coordinating the Training, Recruitment, and Appointment of Teachers

Background

Shortly after the nine-year basic education policy, including junior secondary educationwith the six-year primary education, was introduced in 1989, the Ministry of Education andCulture (MOEC) issued Decree No. 0461/U/1990 to: (i) raise the quality of educationalprograms; (ii) raise the quality of teachers as well as the quality of the students who train tobecome teachers; and (iii) develop a coordination mechanism to balance teacher supply anddemand. Although Indonesia's educational policy during 1969-1994 had been successful inincreasing the enrollment rate of primary education a disequilibrium in teacher supply anddemand had become a problem particularly in primary education due to: (i) an over-complexprocess of teacher recruitment and placement involving multiple Government agencies both atthe central and local levels, and (ii) a change in management responsibility which moved teachertraining from the Directorate-General of Primary and Secondary Education (DGPSE) to theDirectorate-General of Higher Education (DGHE). The decree was issued specifically to avoidproblems in teacher supply and demand during the expansion of secondary schools in order notto repeat the problems faced by primary education.

The Coordination Forum

Under this decree, a Coordination Forum was established in 1990 among the threeagencies of MOEC that are directly involved in the development and deployment of teachers:DGHE, DGPSE, and the Secretariat-General of MOEC. The Coordination Forum functions thedeployment and development of teachers including the related aspects of trainee recruitment,post-training appointment, placement, as well as inservice training and career development ofteachers.

(a) Central Policy Coordination Forum. Also known as the Central DirectionalForum (CDF), is a body of national representatives for policy and programdevelopment. Representatives include the following: Secretary General ofMOEC; Director-General, Director, and Secretary of DGHE; Director-General,Director, and Secretary of DGPSE; Chairperson and Secretary of the Office ofEducation and Culture Research & Development; Director of General SecondaryEducation; Director of Academic Affairs; Director of Private Higher EducationalInstitutions; Chairperson of Personnel Bureau; Chairperson of Planning Bureau;Chairperson of Finance Bureau; Chairperson of Education and Training Center;Chairperson of Information Center. As appropriate, the Coordination Forum caninvite the Chairpersons from the following agencies on an ad-hoc basis: Civil


Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Ministry ofAdministrative Reform (MENPAN). A Joint Secretariat supports the activities ofthe CDF.

(b) The Provincial Coordination Forum for Policies of Program Implementation).The PCDFPI investigates the problems related to imbalances in teacher supply anddemand and teacher development within the region according to the directives ofthe central administration the policies developed. The Head of the ProvincialOffice of MOEC, Head of Provincial Administration of MOEC, Rectors ofLPTKs, Head of the Units of Distance Learning Programs, and related units at theprovincial level are represented in this forum.

(c) District(Kabupaten) /Municipal Coordination Forum for ProgramImplementation (DMCFPI). The Office of MOEC and related units at the districtlevel are represented in this forum.

Functions of the Coordination Forum

The function of the Coordination Forum is to identify and discuss various alternatives tothe problems related to teacher supply and the development of teacher training programs such as:

(a) Student admission, and student distribution in LPTKs in accordance with theactual demand of teachers.

(b) Implementation of preservice training, including teaching practicum forprospective teachers;

(c) Scholarship provision in accordance with students' needs and academicperformance;

(d) Teacher placement and inservice training;(e) Staff and career development, including in-service and continuing education in

subject matter and pedagogy.

In the Coordination Forum relevant MOEC units at the central, provincial, andkabupaten/municipal levels meet to discuss educational policy, make recommendations and tocoordinate activities related to the supply, deployment, and development of teachers. Decision-making authority and responsibility for implementation remain in the relevant units of MOEC.

The Joint Secretariat

The task of the Joint Secretariat is to identify problems in teacher distribution and torecommend policy alternatives. The Executive Unit of the Joint Secretariat will consist of theChairman, Executive Secretary, and two assistants although it can count on the support of relatedGovernment units. The Secretariat will be chaired by the Director of Academic Affairs of DGHEwho reports directly to the Director General of DGHE (who also heads the Secondary SchoolTeacher Development Project). Logistical assistance to the Joint Secretariat will also be provided


by DGHE. (The Bank-assisted project will have a strong link to the Coordination Forum throughthe leaders of the Joint Secretariat).

A larger Plenary Joint Secretariat will include the members of the executive board and thefollowing 10 representative of the Government: Secretary of DGHE, Secretary of DGPSE,Directorate of Teacher and Technical Manpower Training, Directorate of Primary Education,.Directorate of General Secondary Education, Directorate of Secondary Education, Directorate ofSecondary Vocational Education, Directorate of Academic Affairs, Bureau of Personnel, Bureauof Educational Planning and BAPPENAS.

The Role of Central Project Implementation Unit (PIU)

Within the Secondary School Teacher Development Project the PIU is expected tofunction as a facilitator of CDF and PCDFPI once project implementation commences. Whendeemed necessary, the Secondary School Teacher Development Project will support the meetingsin the central office as well as regional meetings. The PIU and the Joint Secretariat will worktogether. Reports prepared by the Joint Secretariat as the result of the Coordination Forummeetings will be shared with the World Bank through the PIU.

Current Status and Outputs

The issues raised during the preparation of the Secondary School Teacher DevelopmentProject highlighted the need for the Coordination Forum. Two recent meetings of theCoordination Forum have advanced the dialogue between DGHE and DGPSE.

The Coordination of In-Service Training. Two Core Meetings took place to discussinservice training, an area where there is a lot of overlap. Attending the meeting of November 8,1995 were the Director Generals of DGHE and DGPSE and their staffs. The Coordination Forumdeveloped a work plan at this meeting which includes:

(a) forming the Joint Secretariat,(b) identifying problems faced by both Directorates,(c) prioritizing problems, and(d) establishing a plan of action.

A second meeting was conducted on December 27, 1995. The participants were the sameas the previous meeting. A decision was reached that overlapping inservice training would beavoided between DGHE and DGPSE.

Organization of 8 Regional Forums. There will be 27 Coordination Forums to representeach of the 27 provinces. In order to conduct more efficient meetings, a plan will be adopted togroup the 27 provinces into 8 regions (Attachment During fiscal year 1996/1997 one meeting ofeach of the eight Regional Coordination Forums is scheduled to take place. The agenda for theRegional Forums will focus on teacher allocation and placement.


Teacher Allocation. The key task of each Coordination Forum at the province level will beto realistically identify the number of teachers needed the public secondary schools in each field ofstudy. This information will be obtained from each Kanwil and discussed with the LPTK in theRegional Forums. The demand for secondary school teachers will be determined by regionsaccording to actual intake into the LPTKs. Criteria for the recruitment of teachers will also beelaborated in the regional meetings. Policy recommendations stemming from these meetingsinclude fellowship for students from rural or remote areas (Attachment).

Action Plan for the Coordination Forum.

The action plan for the Coordination Forum will deal with the following problems:

(a) Planning and management of a national information system on teacher openingsand surpluses,

(b) Limiting the number of new entrants to LPTKs based upon the demand ofteachers. Such indicators as the entrants' field of study, their geographic region oforigin, and the government's capability to provide a teaching appointment will beused to improve the selection process,

(c) Implementing improved pre-service education and teaching practicums to fulfillthe expectation and need of the schools,

(d) Sharing educational resources among the MOEC agencies,(e) Evaluating, assigning, and placing new graduates of the teacher development

programs, and(f) Conducting effective staff development workshops using in-service training and

continuing education.


ATTACHMENT

Action Program forCoordinated Secondary School Teacher Training, Recruitment and Deployment

RESPONSIBLE TIMING/ACTIONOUTPUT/ACTIVITY AGENCY DATE REMARKS

Organizaional acdvities

Preparatory meetings DGHE, DGPSE Nov. 1995- Part of preparation ofMar. 1996 Primary School Teacher

Education Project

Organization of Joint Coordination Apr. 1996 Joint Secretariat headedSecretariat Forum by DGHE Director of

Academic Affairs whoalso supervises project;

Preparation of plan to Joint Secretariat Jul. 1996 PIU to inform Worldreorganize 27 provincial BankCoordination Forums into 8regional forums

Adoption of plan for regional Coordination Jul. 1996 PIU to inform Worldforums Forum Bank

Coordination of inserviceteacher training

Formation of technical Joint Secretariat Jul. 1996 Hosted by PIUcommittee to draftcoordinated strategy

Discussion of coordinated Joint Secretariat Sep. 1996 Hosted by PIUstrategy

Adoption of strategy Coordination Oct. 1996 PIU to inform World_Forum Bank

(Table continued on following page.)


RESPONSIBLE TMING/ACTIONOUTPUT/ACTIVITY AGENCY DATE REMAR

Teacher allocation andplacement

Preparation of strategy for Joint Secretariat Sep. 1996 Coordinated with teamconsultative teacher meetings under projectrecruitment process with field Component 2institutions

Field visits to link regionalforums with:

Secondary schools DGPSE Oct. 1996- Timed with PIU andKanwils DGHE Jun. 1997 project team visits toLPTKs DGHE LPTKs and secondary

schools

Collation of field Joint Secretariat Aug.. 1997 PIU to invite Worldrecommendations Bank comment

Adoption of consultative Coordination Oct. 1997 PIU to inform Worldprocess Forum Bank

Review and assessment Joint Secretariat Oct. 1998 Timed with project'snmidterm review

File M:\2TEACH\NEGS\COORD.DOC


Technical Assistance Summary

Estimated Cost Status of TOR (Date Short List (Date) Standard Responsibility forcontract Supervision

Type of TA Activity Implementing Total Staff Prepared Expected Prepared Expected prepared RSI HQAgency (US$'000) /Month (Y/N)*

A. Institutional Capacity BuildingLocal Experts

Management of science equipment & LPTK 103 245 2/96 3/96 Y Xcoordination of Basic Science Teams

Revising learning materials for The Open 134 50 11/96 12/96 Y Xinservice training University

Supporting school linkages LPTK, Kanwil 12 4.5 2/96 3/96 Y XSchool-based action research LPTK, Kanwil 18 3 5/96 6/96 Y xStaff development specialists LPTK 6 2.3 5/96 6/96 Y XTraining in assessment instruments LPTK 15 5 2/96 3/96 Y XTraining in test administration LPTK 256 96 2/96 3/96 Y XTraining student teaching observers LPTK 35 6 2/96 3/96 Y XResearch for instructional improvement LPTK 8 3 7/96 8/96 Y XPlanning for conversion to university DGHE 96 36 2/97 3/97 Y X

International ExpertsSchool-based action research LPTK, Kanwil 35 3 5/96 6/96 Y xTraining in assessment instruments LPTK 10 0.5 2/96 3/96 Y XTraining student teaching observers LPTK 20 1 2/96 3/96 Y xPlaning for conversion to university DGHE 235 12 2/97 3/97 Y x

B. Implementation Support XLocal Expeits

Curriculum development LPTK 16 6 2/96 3/96 Y XStudent support LPTK 16 6 2/96 3/96 Y XTechnical audit & mid-term review CPIU 40 15 12/96 1/97 Y XInstitutional planning CPIU 21 8 2/97 3/97 Y X

International ExpertsICR preparation CPIU 29 1.5 12/95 1/96 Y X

TOTAL 1105 503.8 Y x* Standard contract form is available at RSI.

INDONESIASecondary School Teacher Development ProjectDetailed Five-Year Implementation Schedule

1996 1SS7 i 198 19" 1 002001ID TaskNamne 02 41Q04101 01Q2 304 QQ10Q2IQ3104Q1I1021031041 IQ21031040110203 O1 1. Improving Presevice & Inservice Teacher Ed. 3 .-

2 A. Curriculum Improvenent

3 National meeting to initiate the process

4 Team meetings for analysis & development . j

5 Field visits to SMP & SMA ._ _

6 Field visits to LPTKs to share information .

7 Feedback & revision

8 Curnculum implementation at LPTKs ._i _i_E

9 Monitoring, feedback (including schools)

10 Revision based on feedback . ._i_i _ .__

11 B. Science Equipment

12 Batch 1

13 Preparing document for eq. purchase .

14 Purchase

15 Workshops on using the equipment _

16 Monitoring & evaluation

17 Batch 2

18 Preparing document for eq. purchase _

19 Purchase

20 Workshops on using the equipment

21 Monitoring & evaluation .

22 C. Ubrary Books 4 -i.

23 Curr. materials for SMP&SMA (start before proj.)

24 Purchase and delivery


1996 [ 1997 1 1998 1 19 1 2000 J 2001

ID Task Narne Q2lQ30Q4 tI1Q2lQ3IQ4 Q1iQ2 Q30Q41QIQ21 03 IQ41Q1Q2LQ31a411IaQ2103

25 Library books (assessing needs before project)

26 Identity books

27 Purchase and delivery .

28 Book translating ___i__________

29 Identity books & translators

30 Translation & publication

31 Book writing 8 publication !_ __

32 National journal of ed, research _ . __

33 RFP for publisher _

34 Review proposals -

36 Announcement -

36 Publishing ; I_i_.___

37 D. Student Support Services . _ i _____*__

38 Establishing student support centers ._ ._._.__

39 Operation

40 E. Inservice Ed. of Secondary School Teachers h -

41 Fellowships for School Teachers I ' ' .

42 Establishing guidelines

43 Select recipients & give awards .

44 Learning materials development i

45 Planning workshops & tech. assistance _

46 Revise, organize & liustrateZ books

47 Field trials

48 Revision -


1996 1 197 I 1993 1900 2000 1 2001ID TaskNam Q2Q30Q4101102 I31041Q1 02 I3 Q4014 0i 0 Q2 0401 IQ2 IQ3104101 IQ21Q3 49 Prnnting -

60 Training tutors .

51 F. Offices & Confeiece Rooms A i t i

52 Identitying needs & locaton_

63 Planning & sanctioning

64 Construction & purchase

'4h


1996 | 1997 I 1998 1 ". 2000 | 2001 |

ID Task Name _Iii4IQ1112103 1Q4 01 Q2 203104101102103104101 Q2103 IQ41Q1 Q213

66 II. Strengthening Unkages to Secondary Schools - F3

66 A. Supporting School Unkages -

67 Student Teaching Program

68 Implem team meeting

69 Fied visits i i

60 Materials printing

61 RegIona meings for PPL

62 Smna grant partnerships

63 Guidenes for proposals

64 Batch I _________

65 Guideline dissemination

66 Proposal wokhop _

67 Select & fund 5 grants

68 Monitoring ,

69 Batch2 -2___ _

70 Batch3 3i

71 School-Based Action Research *

72 Batch 1 i -_ - *

73 Draft & disseminate study TOR _

74 Training in proposal writing

76 Select grant recipit

76 Recipets proceed with eu.s _._.

77 M-term L eni of project monitorng

78 Mid-term workshop__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ $%

INDONESIASecondazy School Teacher Development ProjectDetailed Five-Year Implementation Schedule

1W96 I 1UT 1 1993 3W 291ID TaskName 0203041 0I02103104101021031041Q1I02103041 021031Q4oil 0c,20a3

79 Local _w ps

so Regionai woksho

el Publication of results

82 Batch 2

23 Batch 3..ii

U4 B. Patnerships with Fomign I onsst t t n i . .

_6 E saW* wd _

aso Cal for proposals ' .

87 Select proposals-

se Partnership activtis i i

89 C. LPTK Faculty Teachin SecondsyScols -

C~~~~~~~~ 1100~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

so ~~~4 100 1.04 lap Mn I IWO IWO~~~~~~~~~~9

Pra

lo

ID~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C-4~~~1

i I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i

4.~~-

59 ~~I fo9a8c :Ixu

.. & .Il..&..~~~~...&...&..A1..&..&so ..4a - - a a - a14

VI.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 f t,

0~~

lii Iijll!liii !lii

Ij I .. 11''''1--- - -

......................... ......... .. ........................ ......... ............ .......... . ....... ... ... .... ............... .. .. ................ .... .. .. ..

I fioY z Dd :l I IX7Wtv 99


1996 1997 1993 19" 2000 2001

ID TaskNaffe Q21030Q40Q102103 Q4 I102 Q3|04 Q1|021031041011Q2103 I4Q1023

138 Batch 3 (25) *

139 Nominating candidates & appication

140 Selection S pbcement _

141 Program study

142 Doctoral fellowships, overseas _ _

143 Batch I (10), activities start before proJect

144 Language training & orientation

145 Program study i -

146 Batch 2 (35) i

14T Nomian candidates

148 Selction of institution & application

149 Language training & orentation -

150 Program study i

151 Batch 3 (55) iS

152 Nominatig candidates -

153 Selection of institution & application

154 Language training & orientation

155 Program study

156 B. Refresher Courses

157 Batch 1 (50 fellows)

158 Nominating candidates

169 Seectng canddt -

160 Ideniffying & contacting instions

161 TTwo pre-departure seminars (each for I wk)


1996 1997 1993g 199320 2001OID TaskNarne Q21Q3Q41Q2Q3lQ41Q2Q3Q4Q1lQ2lQ3lQ4Q1llQtQ1aQ2Q3 00

162 Program study -

163 Pnnting & distribution of materials

164 Batch 2(50 fellows)

166 Nominating candidates

166 Selecting candidates _

167 Identitying & contacting institutions

168 Two pre-departure seminars (each for I wk)

169 Program study

i70 Printing & distribution of materials -

171 Batch 3(50 fellows)

172 Nominating candidates _

173 Selecting candidates -

174 Identifying & contacting institutions -

176 Two pre-departure seminars (each for 1 wk)

176 Program study -

177 Printing & distribution of materials

178 C. Staff Development Workshops

179 TOR

180 Select trainers

181 Regional staff development workshops

182 PKG instructors with S2 degrees as mentrs _ i


1996 Q 1997 J 1998 1os 200ID Task Name Q20Q3 Q4 01 lQ2103 Q4JI l Q102 0Q31041Q0102103-104I01 l2103141102 03

183 IV. Building Educational Research Capacity 4 i

184 A. Assessrnent of SI Recruits

185 Specifications for instruments

186 Short list of candidate LPTKs

187 Requesting for preliminary proposals

198 Training workshops

189 Select contracts _

190 Construct instruments & monitor _

191 Pilot instruments i

192 Analyze data & develop guidelines for use -

193 Dissemination _

194 B. Quality Assurance * C-

195 Batch 1

196 Developing assessment instruments i_X

197 Workshops to train test administrators -

198 Selecting samples & administering tests -

199 Data analyzed & presented to LPTks

200 Batch 2

201 Developing assessment instruments

202 Workshops to train test administrators _

203 Selecting samples administering tests

204 Data analyzed & presented to LPTks

205 Batch 3

206 Developing assessment instruments -


1996 1997 t 1m I.I j 2T 010

ID TaskNare 2034a01102103 4 01 la21203041Qi 01 2103Q41 aQ21a031a410la21a3207 Workshops to train test admnttors -. _

208 Selecting samples & administering tests -

209 Data analyzed & presented to LPTKs -

210 b. Research on the Improvemwnt of Instruction . . . .__

211 Batch I ___i _i_i___

212 Dran& disseminate study TOR

213 Training in proposal writing

214 Selct grant recipients .

215 Recipients proceed with dudis i_i_._._X

216 Local workshops (5, each for ane week) ..

217 National & regixnl w _kcxp (twice) .

218 Mid-tern & end of prmject monitoring -

219 Publication of results -

220 Batch 2 . . .

221 Batch3 3 _ _ _


1996 J: 19397 J 1993 1111W1 26W [ 20W1ID Task Nrn Q213IQ4JI91 IQ2IQ3104101 1102103Q41 IQ2103104 0 01 IQ2103104 0Q I 0Q2Q3

222 V. Preparing for a Wider Mandate _ -

223 a. Plannhig for Conversion to Univ. _ i_i _i___

224 Establishing guidles -

225 LPTKs submitthng letter of intenr _

226 LPTKs submitting proposals

227 LPTK visitation and diague (10 IKIPs)

228 Selecting insttuions

229 Program planning b

230 b. Preparing tor Accreditation Zs i___-i_*_

231 Meetings with BAN

232 Refining standards, indicators & creria +

233 Training in self-evaluatlon procedures

234 Training eva. report writers & peer vaadattors -

235 Piloting self-evalkaion&peer validation sys.

236 Seminars & dissemination

237 c. Career Planning i

238 Planning structue & progras of cis

239 Drafting guideines for selection criteria

240 LPTKs presenting proposal

241 Evaluating proposals

242 Revisng budget & procedures -

243 Monitoring project impiementation

-.1

INDONESIASecondafy School Teachr Devebpme Project

Projecd Component by Year - Tota including Contingn

Totba including Contigencles (Rupiah Bililon) Total Including Contingwncis (USS Million)9697 9719J 9199 99100 00101 Tota 967 97196 98199 99100 00101 Totai

1.ImprovigPrP-swviceandIn-serviceTeacherEducation 22.0 26.4 10.9 11.5 8.7 79.5 9.8 11.8 4.8 5.1 3.9 35.42. Strengthenin LLnkages to Secondary Schoos 3.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 0.2 12.5 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.1 5.63. Rah¶gthe ouafcatonsofTeacherEducators 4.1 18.0 25.3 24.0 11.8 83.1 1.8 8.0 11.3 10.7 5.2 37.04. Building Educational Rsearch Capacity 0.8 2.6 2.1 1.2 0.0 6.8 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.0 3.05. Preparing for a Wer Mandate 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.4 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.36. Prject tmp_iefettion 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.3 10.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 4.9Total PROJECT COSTS 32.9 53.0 44.1 42.2 23.4 195.6 14.7 23.6 19.6 18.8 10.4 87.1

0.

WDONESIASecondary Sdod Teaw Develpmnt Projed

Expencdiue Acwula by Yeas - Totals Indkdh Contbigen

Totals Including ConUngecIe (Ruplah BIlbon) Totbls Includhn ConUngencis (USS 9M11on)96197 971W 9U199 9900 00101 Total ff/97 97198 98109 "100 00101 Total

1. Ilnvestmnt Costsk ClVN Wooks

storae and laboratory 1.5 1.6 - - - 3.1 0.7 0.7 - - - 1.4Renovai - 1.9 2.0 2.1 - 5.9 - 0.8 0.9 .0.9 - 2.6

Subtotal Cv Works 1.5 3.4 2.0 2.1 - 8.9 0.7 1.5 0.9 0.9 - 4.0B. Equlpment

Sdence Equipnt 14.7 15.2 - - - 29.9 6.6 6.8 - - - 13.3Ofilce Eq*rnent 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - 0.3

Subtobtl Equipmen 14.9 15.4 0.2 - - 30.5 8.6 6.8 0.1 - - 13.6C. FunVIte 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 - 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 . 0.9D. Consumable Materals 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5E.Learnngandteachingmaterlalsia 0.1 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.5 4.6 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 2.1F. Consulant

Inkmnatonal Consultants 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4Nafional Consultants 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9

Subtol Consultant 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.4 2.8 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.2G. Fellowships

Domestc Felowshlps 2.0 6.3 9.7 10.1 5.1 33.2 0.9 2.8 4.3 4.5 2.3 14.8Intematon Feowships 2.1 9.1 14.8 13.0 5.7 44.7 0.9 4.1 6.6 5.8 2.5 19.9 Oq

Subtobal FellowhIps 4.1 15.5 24.5 23.1 10.8 77.9 1.8 6.9 10.9 10.3 4.8 34.72H. Grants

Link grant 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 - 8.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 3.9 0Research grant 0.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.3 4.4 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.1 2.0

Subtotal Grants 2.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.3 13.2 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.1 5.9i. Studis - 0.6 - - - 0.6 - 0.3 - - - 0.3J. SdidarhIps 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.0 22.5 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 10.0K Training and Worshops

W rkshop&SernlS asm 2.2 5.1 4.2 4.0 3.4 18.9 1.0 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.5 8.4Local Trainng 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0

Subtotalrainingand Workshops 2.8 5.5 4.8 4.5 3.9 21.1 1.1 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.8 9.4L Project Managenwnt ExpendItures

PIl Honorarsa 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 4.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.0PIU Travel Expenses 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0PIU OperatIonal Costs 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.2PIU Consumable Materals 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

Subtotal roec Management Expenditures 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 10.2 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 4.5Total PROJECT COSTS 32.9 53.0 44.1 42.2 23.4 195.6 14.7 23.6 19.6 18.8 10.4 87.1

a icuding writing, trarsation, puirni. and dissemination.

INDONESIASOndIfy Siool Teedw DOVaWm Prad

ExpedIkxe Aocoiml by Componerifa(US$ MGo)

anid Streng1hening Raiking Si. uLidhig Prpauigln4efVlc Unkls to Qualfcaons Educational for aTecher Seonday Of Teacr Resewch Wder Proect

Educatin Schools EducetoM andat Implrn _non Total

_wetamCostk CiSVi Wodi

a argodlabortiy 1A 1.4RenovioM 2.6 2.8

SubWo Ct Works 4.0 - - - - 4.0. EquipmetSdcbce Equ t 13.3 . 13.3OMllc Eqpm - -- 0.2 0.1 0.3

Subtm Equpmew 13.3 - - - 0.2 0.1 13.6C. FtNlb,w 0.8 - - 0.1 - 0.9D.CoUmrblsMtaerb 0.0 0.4 0.0 01 0.5E. Lawning Wd g M m a /a 2.1 - - - - 2.1F. Consltdant

hftle a" CoMuiId - 0.0 - 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4Nagonai Coreulbt 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 01 0.1 0.9

Sublo CorAuitnt 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 1.2G. Feflowhip

DonieC Fekwhis 14.8 - - - 14.8n t Fal - - 19.9 - - - 19.9

Subb3ftl F _oNos - - 34.7 - - - 34.7H. Granta

Lhi* gr - 3.9 - - - 3.9Ressil ga t 0.5 0.1 - 1.4 - - 2.0

Subtal Grail 0.5 4.0 - 1.4 - - 5.9I. Sbu - - 0. 0.3J. Sdm 10.0 - - - - - 10.0K. Tramni md Wosishpe

Wobrksho" & Swmkiw 4.1 1.1 1.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 8.4Locul Trekg 0A 0.3 0.0 03 - 1.0

Subtoa hrl annd Worshops 4.5 1.4 1.9 0.9 0.4 0.2 9.4Proe MamgeenExpnditur.PIU Honora - 0.1 - - - 1.9 2.0PIU TrvlExp_ E-- - - - 1.0 1.0PIU Operila Cola - 0.0 - - 1.2 1.2PIU Cnorlablef bt s - - - 0.4 0.4

Subtl rojet Managment Expridlturs - 0.1 - - - 4.4 4.5Total PROJECT COSTS 35.4 5.6 37.0 3.0 1.3 4.9 87.1

Taxes 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7Fonign Exchange 14.1 2.2 19.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 37.1

jf\ Wickidng wrotig bwaon. prkitV, and diemmhabon.

Amnex 13 75

INDONESIASECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Procumment PlanContracting and Review ResponsibilIties

Contract

Total ENtm ted Bank DocumentsValue Contrat DIPANPRES Procurment Kind of Review required for

No. Ca pry (USS M) Quantity Ailocrtlon Method Review1/ By Dlsbursement

1 Cyti Worksa 4 44

Smail contrat 4w50o000 1.2 24 LPTK National Shopping Random Post SPNIb SOE

Mdium o>ntract 450,000 -S500,000 2.9 20 LPTK NCB Random Post RSI SOELug conbuct4 500,000 (itf ny) 0 0 LPTK NCB Prior RSI FullFirst contr ct>1100.000 1 LPTK NCB Prior RSI Full

2 Equlp 1entFlumituralConsumiable Matlabls 15 48

Smag pacage 50.000 4.6 DGHEILPTK Shoppin, Random Post SPN SOEMedlun padkge 450,000 - 4S200000 7.6 40 LPTK NCB Random Post RSI SOE

Spadcfcand lrg* pacag >200.000 3 6 LPTK lCB Prior TM/c Full

First contr ct>450,000 1 LPTK TBD Prior RSI Full

3 LaminIng and Teaching Maitbs 2.1 28

Small pckage 450000 0.6 18 LPTK Shopping Random Post SPN SOE

Medlun padcage 45,000 - 4200,000 1.2 10 DGHEALPTK NCB Random Post RSI SOE

Speciic and lrge padckse >200,000 (if ny) 0 0 DGHE ICB Prlor TM Full

4 Consultuncy Service r StudIea 1.5 1Q

Firm <4100.000 0.7 7 DGHE Short listing Limited Prior RSI SOEIndividual 450.000 0.5 10 DGHE Othen Linited Prior RSI SOEOthe 0.3 2 DGHE Shon listing Prior TM Full

5 Intemational Ftowshlp 19.9 NIA DGHE Others Limited Prior RSI SOE

6 Domestic Fellowships Id 14.6 8 Universites Others Limited Prior RSI SOE

7 Scholarships 10 N/A LPTK Others Limited Prior RSI SOE

8 G"nts / 5.9 80 LPTK Others Limited Prior RSI SOE

9 Local TrInting 9.6 N/A DGHEALPTK Others Random Post SPN SOE

10 ProJct Opoting Eapen"a 4.5 N/A DGHE Othem Random Post SPN SOE

87.1 223

/a Prior review, nndonm post review snd limitd prior review (OR, proposed progranm and draf contract).th Supervlsion rnssionskc Teak Manager.Id First year fund will be allocated In DGHE. and subsequently contracted out to the recipient university.

76 Annex 14


Estimated Schedule of Disbursements

Disbursements

IBRD fiscal year Amount per Cumulative Disbursement profileand semester semester amount (%) (%)+

--- (US$ million) --------

£Y962 4.0 4.0 7 0

FY971 4.9 8.9 15 02 8.1 17.0 28 3

Ey981 8.1 25.1 41 62 7.0 32.1 53 10

FY991 7.0 39.1 65 222 6.7 45.8 76 34

EY001 6.7 52.5 87 422 3.5 56.0 93 54

EYQ1 3.5 59.5 98 662 0.9 60.4 100 74

La Latest standard disbursement profile for education projects in Indonesia (June 1995).Completion Date: March 31, 2001Closing Date: September 30, 2001

Annex 15: Page I of 10 77

INDONESIA


Monitoring and Evaluation

Presented in this annex is an overview of monitoring and evaluation for theproject, including indicators by project component and sub-components to guidesummative and formative evaluations as well as monitoring and supervision. TheMinistry of Fducation and Culture (MOEC) will establish a Project Benefit Monitoringand Evaluation (PBME) unit at the Central Project Implementation Unit. This unit will becomprised of one or two staff who would perform project monitoring and coordinateevaluation activities. Collecting and supplying data for monitoring and evaluation will bethe responsibility of the Central Project Implementation Unit for the overall project andLocal Project Implementation Unit for activities at institutional sites.

Following are the detailed performance indicators. Part I displays the projectoverview with performance indicators for summative evaluation to be used at projectcompletion. Part II, displays detailed performance indicators for monitoring, formativeevaluation and supervision for use during project implementation.

Definitions

Monitoring is the process of tracking project activities to determine if they arebeing implemented as planned. Information from supervisory visits, routine visits andreports from sites and task teams, and periodic project reviews are sources formonitoring information which can be fed into the evaluation process particularly at theformative stage to allow for adjustment of activities and timeframes.

Formative evaluation occurs during development and implementation of a projector set of activities which are part of a project. It is used to determine how well theindividual activities are being accomplished compared to themselves. Formativeevaluation provides immediate feedback for improvement and correction. This type ofevaluation is invaluable to curriculum design and development which takes place overseveral years and involves continuous revision and refinement.

Summative evaluation occurs at project completion. It attempts to provide ananswer to how well the overall objective(s) was accomplished. In formative andsummative evaluation the same instruments may be used. It is how the results are fedback into the system that determines the distinction between the two types of evaluation.

INDONESIASecondary Teacher Development Project

Part 1: Project Overview with Performance Indicators for Evaluation _1General performance indicators have been developed to measure the impact of the project. The chart below °°provides a project overview by objective, component, subcomponent, inputs, expected output and the generalperformance indicator by which to guide a summative impact evaluation of the project at completion.

Component(Project Objective) Input Output Outcome indicator

Component 1Enhance teaching-learningprocesses in secondary schoolsa) Curriculum Improvement a) English Team workshop Higher student achievement in

Pedagogy Team workshops the preservice program;Social Science Team workshops Improved \

b) Science Equipment b) Science equipment LPTKScience equipment workshops pre-service and ___

c) Textbooks and References _ c) Books (purchase and writing) in-service programsTranslations Higher rate of in-servicedJournal publications secondary school teachers

d) Student Support d) Tutors with S-1 degrees;Services (including female teachers)

e) In-service Education e) Fellowships to school teachersf) Learning Materials Dev. f) Piloting and revision of

distance education materialsg) Offices and g) Offices, Conference rooms

Conference RoomsMore LPTK faculty working

Component 2 with SMP teacher s and studentsEstablish linkages between /_lLPTKs and secondawy schools re LPTK graduates hired ina) Supporting School a) Teaching practicum activities partnerships secondary schools;

Linkages with secondaryb) Grant funds for joint LPTK schools Improved teaching practicum

and secondary school activities establishedc) Overseas Partnerships c) Exchange program Joint activites conducted regularly

Component 3Promote quality and efficiencyin programs, staff developmem prove S2 and S3 degree holders

/ quality of \ ,, constitute 45% of LPTK staffa) Masters Pr.-gram a) National grants (1,450) LPTK (including female candidates)

Overseas grants (150) teaching staffb) Doctorate Program b) National grants ( 50)

Overseas grants (100) Course-related materialsc) Refresher Courses c) Overseas seminars (150) produced regularly

d) Faculty Workshops d) Regional workshops (8)Mentors

Component 4Build educational researchcapacity, Enhance effectivemanagement

a) Entry-level Student a) Workshops to developAssessment instruments

Training of assessors teaching & leaming Higher achievement of LPTKb) System of quality assurance in LPTKs graduates

b) Quality Assurance

c) Research on Improvement c) Research grants Research pubished inof Instruction journals regularly

Component 5Define a wider mandate forLPTKs, Enhance effecivemanagement hIsfiwuional self-assessmenta) Planning for a Wider a) Workshops for planning Improved conducted regularly

Mandate efficiencyb) Preparing for accreditation b) Self-evaluation of the LPTKs

Training Workshops More LPTK graduates hiredc) Career Planning c) Seed money

\ vc>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%

80 Annex 15: Page 4 of IO

Part IIDetailed Performance Indicators for

Monitoring, Formative Evaluation, and Supervision

Detailed performance indicators have been identified according to each sub-component formonitoring and supervision. Teams responsible for project implementation will work closelywith the PIU to provide data and reports from the field. Formative evaluation questions arelisted for each sub-component to serve as guide to assessment.

Component 1: Improving Preservice and Inservice Teacher Education

(1-a) Curriculum Improvement Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Content courses in English and Social Sciencedeveloped Curriculum Report to PIU Two times per

* Subject-specific pedagogy courses developed Team year* Double-major and major-minor programs

offered

[Evaluation Question: In what ways have the new courses improved the programs of study? l

(1-b) Science Equipment Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics BST Report to PIU Two times perlaboratories renovated and equipped to BST yearstandards

* Storage facilities for the equipment installedand used

* Science workshops for LPTK lecturers inoperation

Evaluation Question: In what ways have the new laboratories improved the progress of study? 1

Annex 15: Page 5 of 1081

(1-f) Learning Materials Development Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Materials are selected for revision UT Report to PIL Quarterly for* Materials are revised and piloted SMA the year I & 2* Materials are revised Twice a year

Evaluation | In what ways are the revised leaming materia s more effective[ Question: than the old learning materials in training inservice teachers?

(1-g) Offices and Conference Rooms Indicat r Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Number of staff offices are increased* Number of conference rooms are increased LPTK Report to PIU Biannually* Student-faculty, inter-faculty interactionare increased

* Numbers of faculty attending faculty meetingand seminars are increased

Evaluation Question: In what ways are the new spaces changing the quality of interactions ?

Component 2: Strengthening Linkages to Secondary Schools

(2-a) Supporting School Linkages Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Increased activities between LPTK andsecondary schools LPTK Reports to PIU Two times per

* Increased numbers of school teachers joining Kanwil yearon-campus programs at LPTKs SMP

* LPTK teachers are working in SMPs withsecondary school teachers and students

* LPTK graduates are being hired in thesecondary schools

*Increased joint research (LPTK-schools)

E valuation Question: How are the linkages changing the effectiveness of LPTK programs?H How are the linkages affecting the quality of LPTK graduates?

82 Annex 15: Page 6 of IO

(1-f) Learning Materials Development Indicato Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Materials are selected for revision UT Report to Pl Quarterly for* Materials are revised and piloted SMA the year 1 & 2* Materials are revised Twice a year

Evaluation In what ways are the revised learning materi Is more effectiveQuestion: than the old learning materials in training inservice teachers?

(1-g) Offices and Conference Rooms Indicat or Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Number of staff offices are increased* Number of conference rooms are increased LPTK Report to PIU Biannually* Student-faculty, inter-faculty interactionare increased

* Numbers of faculty attending faculty meetingand seminars are increased

Evaluation Question: In what ways are the new spaces changing the quality of interactions ?

Component 2: Strengthening Linkages to Secondary Schools

(2-a) Supporting School Linkages Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Increased activities between LPTK andsecondary schools LPTK Reports to PIU Two times per

* Increased numbers of school teachers joining Kanwil yearon-campus programs at LPTKs SMP

* LPTK teachers are working in thesecondary schools

* LPTK graduates are being hired in thesecondary schools

*Increased joint research (LPTK-schools)

Evaluation Question: How are the linkages changing the effectiveness of LPTK programrs?How are the linkages affecting the quality of LPTK graduates?


(2-c)Partnership with Foreign Institutions Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* International visits are conducted and lessons are LPTK Report to PIU Two times perapplied to the implementation of teaching yearpracticum and school linkages with the LPTKs

Evaluation Question: In what ways have the teaching practicum improved and how areoverseaslessons in school linkages being applied to the LPTK programs?

Component 3: Raising the Qualifications of Teacher Educators

(3-a )Masters Program Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* The number of fellowship grantees Consultants Report to PIU Two times perreaches 1,450 domestic and year150 international by the end of the project

Evaluation Question: How are the returnees p aced? In what ways have their t eachingchanged?

(3-b) Doctorate Program Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* The number of fellowship grantees reaches Consultants Report to PIU Two times per100 international and 50 domestic by the yearend of the project

Evaluation Question: How are the returnees placed? In what ways have their teaching(changed?


(3-c) Refresher Courses Indicator Monitor Means Frequency___________________________________ (who) (how) (when)

* 150 candidates are attending the interational Consultants Report to PIU Two times pernon-degree professional development progran year

* Course-related materials are produced by thereturnees of the refresher courses

Evaluation Questions: In what ways have the courses improved the quality of teaching?In what way are the teaching materials developed through the courses impacting the programs? |

(3-d) Faculty Workshops Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* 8 regional workshops are held during the LPTK Report to PIU Two times perthe project year

* Mentors are teaching subject-specificpedagogy courses ___ __ __

Evaluation Questions: In what way are faculty workshops improving the quality of LPTKs?

Component 4: Building Educational Research Capacity

(4 a) Entry-level Student Assessment Indicatoi Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Assessment instrument is developed and LPTK Report to PIU Two times aimplemented year

* Results of the assessment is analyzed* Analysis is presented to the LPTK teachers

and to the student support services* Teaching is adjusted to bring the level of

students up from where they areEvaluation Question: In what ways are the assessments helping to improve entry level studentachievement?


(4-b) Quality Assurance Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Student teachers are assessed after practicum LPTK Report to PIL Two times per* Each LPTK student is assessed at graduation year

Evaluation Question: What is the quality of LPTK graduates as entry level teachers?

(4-c) Research: Improvement of Instruction Monitor Means FrequencyIndicator (who) (how) (when)

* Research is designed and conducted LPTK Report to PIU Two times per* Findings are applied for improving year

instructional materials* Findings are published in national and

international journals

Evaluation Question: How is the research improving the instruction at LPTKs and the schools?

Component 5: Preparingfor a Wider Mandate

(5- a) Planning for a Wider Mandate Indicatoi Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Guidelines for a wider mandate are drafted DGHE Report to At completion* "Letter of intent" from LPTKs are submitted DGHE of activity

to the DGHE PIU during first year* Proposals from LPTK are submitted to be

reviewed by the DGHE* Visitation and dialogue with nominated LPTKs

are conducted* Selection of LPTKs are made DGHE* Program planning are selected institutions areprocessed no later than 3 years into the project LPTK Report to PIU Once a semester

semester

Evaluation Question: How are LPTKs maintaining excellence in teacher education as they adopta wider mandate?


(5-b) Preparing for Accreditation Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* Meetings are held with BAN LPTK Report to PIU Two times* Standards for LPTKs are adjusted to DGHE BAN Report to DGHE per year

guidelines and drafted* Self-study and peer validation are implemented* Evaluation report writers and peer validators LPTK Report to DGHEare trained

* Seminars for system improvement and DGHE Report to PIUdissemination are conducted I I

Evaluation Question: How are LPTKs developing self-asses sment capacity?

(5- c) Career Planning Indicator Monitor Means Frequency(who) (how) (when)

* A career informnation office is in place Career Report to PIU Two times per* A data base of career infornation is Office year

developed and shared with faculty and LPTKstudents

* Numbers of students selecting doublemajor and major-minor are increasing

Evaluation Question: In what ways is the career office helping graduates obtain jobs?

Annex 16 87


Supervision Plan

FY and Date Mission Objectives Mission Composition Allocation(Staff Weeks)

FY96 Education specialist 2June, 1996 Project launch workshop Teacher education specialist I

Implementation specialist IHuman resource economist I

FY 97 Practicum and curriculum teams, Education specialist 2November, 1996 IKIPs for conversion, Task Force, Teacher education specialist I

linkages, and SI assessment Human resource economist Iinstrument

April, 1997 Action plan for teacher reassign- Education specialist 2ment, research, practicum handbook, Teacher education specialist Istudent and services, assessment Human resource economist Itests results, admission standards

FY 98November, 1997 Research, linkages, admission Education specialist 2

standards, curriculum, practicum, Teacher education specialist 2and institutional self-assessment and Human resource economist 2wider mandate

April, 1998 Status of school linkages, Education specialist 2placement of fellowships, and use of Technical assistance specialist 2facilities

FY 99December, 1998 Practicum and curriculum teams, Education specialist 2

action plan for teacher reassignment, Teacher education specialist IIKIPs for conversion, Task Force, Human resource economist I

April, 1999 Midterm review Education specialist 2(include PBME progress report) Education evaluation specialist I

Implementation specialist IHuman resource economist I

FY 00 Education specialist 2November, 1999 Admission standards, student Teacher education specialist 2

achievement, student-teacher ratio,April, 2000 employment of graduation, Education specialist 2

conversion to universities Teacher education specialist 2

FY 01 Education specialist 2March, 2001 Project completion review Teacher education specialist 2

Human resource economist 2

Total 46

88 Annex 1 7: Page I of 5


Project Efficiency and Sustainability

Improving Efficiency of LPTKs

Raising student-teacher ratio of the LPTKs

1. The need to improve the efficiency of public LPTKs in Indonesia is demonstratedwith two frequently used indicators: student-teacher ratio and unit cost. As of 1994-95,the 30 public LPTKs (excluding FKIP of the Open University) enroll 138,577 students intheir diploma and degree programs, and employ a total of 13,971 teaching staff, averaging9.9 students per teaching staff. In contrast the overall student-teacher ratio of the entirepublic higher education sector in Indonesia stands around 12:1, about 21% higher than theLPTKs. This ratio varies widely among both the IKIPs/STKIPs and the FKIPs. While it is12:1 for IKIP Jakarta, it is 5:1 and below for IKIP Manado and STKIP Gorontalo (Table1). The ratio for the 19 FKIPs on average is slightly higher than the IKIPs/STKIPs, andhas an even larger variation.

Table 1 Efficiency Indicators of the LPTKs

Student -teacher Total expenditure per Routine budget per studentIKJPA¶TKIP ratio student (million Rp.) (million Rp.)Jakarta 12.1 2.7 1.0Semarang 11.6 2.0 1.0Yogya 11.4 2.0 1.1Bandung 11.2 1.7 0.9Malang 9.4 2.1 1.IMedan 8.8 2.1 1.2Padang 8.7 2.4 1.5Surabaya 7.9 3.1 1.6Uj. Pandang 7.6 2.1 1.3Singaraja 7.2 2.8 1.7Manado 5.2 3.3 1.8Gorontalo 4.1 6.5 4.1AVERAGE 9.2 2.3 1.2

2. One measure of unit cost in education is the per student expenditure. Table 1 alsodisplays the per student total expenditure and routine budget for the IKIPs/STKIPs. Theinstitutions with the lowest student-teacher ratios have the highest per student totalspending and routine budget. Except for IKIP Ujung Pandang, all the other institutionswhose student teacher-ratios are below 8.7:1 have higher-than-average per studentspending. Since LPTKs spend more than half of their expenditures on staff salaries, thelow student-teacher ratio and high unit cost indicate that resources can be saved by raisingthe student-teacher ratio.


3. A very important factor to consider is quality when the efficiency of the LPTKs isexamined. If an institution with above-the-average resources used such resourcesappropriately to improve its quality of teaching and research, and support well-designedactivities to provide students with a better educational experience, the high per studentspending might be justified. This is not the case with the LPTKs. Although there is nosystematic measurement of the quality of programs of the 12 public IKIPs/STKIPs and the19 FKLPs, general perception suggests that the IKIPs/STKIPs with highest per studentspending do not necessarily offer the strongest programs. As a matter of fact, some of theinstitutions with perceived high quality programs, such as IKIPs Bandung and Malang,have lower-than-average per student spending. This points to the direction where theefficiency of the LPTKs can be improved and resources saved.

4. The Government has decided to raise the student-teacher ratio of the LPTKs to12:1 over the period of the project, the average level for public universities in Indonesia.The long term target is 15:1. The excess teaching staff would be assigned to secondaryschools and the Open University's inservice teacher training programs. This redeploymentwould greatly enhance the capacity of the secondary schools since currently the majorityof the teachers in these schools are underqualified. It would also increase the access totutoring for the distance inservice teacher training programs of the Open University. Theseprograms provide courses to primary and secondary school teachers to upgrade theirqualifications and are rapidly expanding. In 1994-95 alone, they took 12,600 suchteachers. Currently, it offers programs in three areas of study: English, math and sciences.The University hires lecturers from other universities as tutors, meet with the inserviceteachers twice a week to answer questions and help them learn.

5. The redeployment will generate cost savings, measured by the wages that wouldbe paid for the positions the excess teaching staff would be assigned to. Currently, theannual salary of a typical teaching staff in an IKIP or a university is Rp. 5.66 million(US$2,520), the amount paid to civil servants in category G-III (d) on government salaryschedule. This figure is appropriate for calculating the cost savings for assigning excessteaching staff to the Open University's tutoring positions. SI degree holders who becomesecondary school teachers earn a starting salary of Rp. 3 million (US$1,336) per year. Thetotal amount of cost savings can be estimated based on these figures, if we hadinformation on the proportions of the excess teaching staff to be assigned to the OpenUniversity and to secondary schools. Such information is not available at present. Table 2demonstrates the estimated cost savings, assuming half of the teaching staff would becometutors at the Open University and half would become secondary school teachers. The tableshows that the redeployment would save a total of US$4.7 million per year if the student-teacher ratio of the LPTKs is raised to 12:1. The savings would almost double when theratio is raised to 15:1 in the future.


Table 2 Projected Savingsby Raising the Student-Teacher Ratio of the IKIPs/STKIPs

Student-teacher Number of excess Savings per year Savings over 5 yearsratio teachers (in US$ million) (in US$ million)

15 4,732 9.1 45.614 4,072 7.9 39.313 3,311 6.4 32.112 2,422 4.7 23.3

6. Another unquantifiable, nevertheless important, benefit is more and strongerlinkages between the LPTKs and the secondary schools, which is among the primary goalsof the project.

Improving the efficiency of the project

7. The reduction of the LPTK teaching staff will also improve the efficiency of theproject. Originally, it was estimated that office space and conference rooms were inshortage for 6,000 LPTK teaching staff. It was proposed that about US$11.0 millionwould be invested in building new offices and renovating existing facilities on an equalbasis in order to eliminate the shortage. Now that about 2,400 LPTK teaching staff wouldbe on assignment at secondary schools or the Open University, the number of spacesneeded would decrease from 6,000 to 3,600. As a result, the total estimated cost forproviding the offices and conference rooms by renovation would be reduced to aboutUS$3.1 million, generating nearly US$7.9 million in savings. The actual amount of savingswould be even larger after taking into account the maintenance expenditures that would benecessary otherwise.

Sustainability of Project Interventions

Institutional sustainability

8. Indonesia's human resource development strategy will provide very importantbasis for the impact of the proposed project to sustain. Achieving the compulsory nine-year basic education and improving quality are high priorities for the GOI. Recognizingthe critical role of quality teachers in achieving goals of educational development, theGovernment will provide necessary support to the teacher training sector. TheGovernment's commitment to basic education and teacher training has been confirmed byMENPAN's decision to allocate 25,000 new positions to MOEC for hiring in 1996-97while in other government agencies the zero-growth policy in hiring civil servants is


strictly enforced. As secondary education expands, the capacity to absorb the newgraduates from LPTKs will be continuously strengthened.

9. The LPTKs with strengthened capacity would also ensure that the impact of theproject will be sustained. The proposed project would provide assistance to the LPTKs toestablish quality assurance and accreditation mechanisms. These measures would enhancethe ability of the LPTKs for self-examination and ensure that the institutions willcontinuously strive for quality improvement. The project would make teacher education'slink to secondary schools through practice teaching and school-based action research apermanent feature of the LPTKs, enhancing the sustainability of the project impact. Byraising the student-teacher ratio, the LPTKs would free up resources that could be used toprovide other inputs to improve instruction and research, thereby contributing to the goalsof the project.

Financial sustainability

10. The total cost of the proposed project is Rp. 197 billion, or US$88 million, ofwhich US$61 million would be provided by the Bank. This amount would be investedover a five-year period. The average annual investment represents 2.6% of the DGHE'stotal budget. Investment in some of the activities would require additional recurrentexpenditure in order for their effect to be sustained. These activities are: (a) purchase ofequipment and library books, and providing offices and conference rooms; (b) upgradingstaff qualifications; and (c) supporting linkages to schools and research.

11. Under the project, a total of US$19.9 million (or averaging nearly US$4 millionannually) would be invested in purchasing science equipment and library books, andproviding offices and conference rooms. Currently, funds for maintenance and operation(OPF) of the LPTKs equal about 23% of the investments. If the LPTKs continue this levelof OPF spending, the new investment would require an additional US$0.9 million inrecurrent expenditure.

12. The project would also provide scholarships to 1,750 LPTK lecturers to pursuegraduate studies toward S2/S3 degrees. LPTK lecturers with 5-year working experienceare usually in Group 111(b) on the government wage schedule. Assuming some of themreceive project scholarships to study toward an S2/S3 degree and others remain teachingwith an SI degree. Ten years later, those with an S2/S3 degree would move up the rankfaster and be most likely in Group IV (a). According to the same wage schedule,individuals within this category and with 15 years of seniority would be paid Rp. 6.1million. Those with an SI degree would most likely be in Group 111(d) and paid Rp. 5.7million per year. The difference in annual salaries for 1,750 teaching staff would totalabout Rp. 745 million, or US$0.3 million.

13. The project would provide an annual average of US$1.1 million (total of US$5.7million) to strengthen linkages to secondary schools (excluding that for establishing

92 Annex 17. Page S of 5

partnerships with foreign institutions) and strengthening educational research. In order forthe effects of these activities to be sustained, the same level of funding should be providedby the Govermnent upon project completion.

14. Table 3 shows that the estimated incremental recurrent expenditures total US$2.3million in order for the project to sustain its impact. This amount represents about 3.5percent of the current recurrent expenditure of the 12 IKIPs/STKIPs -- even lower if theFKIPs are taken into account -- and about 0.6 percent of the DGHE recurrent budget(Table 4). The incremental increase is small and unlikely to cause a financial burden to theLPTKs or the DGHE.

Table 3 Incremental Increase in Annual Recurrent Expenditures

AmountPurpose (US$ mnillion)Maintenance 0.9Salaries 0.3Operation 1.1Total 2.3

Table 4 Comparing the Incremental Increasein Annual Recurrent Expenditure

(US$ million)Annual incremental IKIP/STKIP DGHE

increase of recurrent recurrent %recurrent costs expenditure ('94) budget ('94)

A B C A/B A/C

2.3 66.1 396.9 3.5 0.6

15. Indeed, the incremental increase in recurrent expenditure would be more thanoffset by the savings realized by raising student-teacher ratio to 12:1: US$4.7 per yearfrom redeploying about 2,400 excess teaching staff to secondary schools and the OpenUniversity and a one-time US$7.9 from scaled-down construction of officeaccommodations. The Government has been urged to increase recurrent commitments toindividual LPTKs as a result of these savings and as an incentive for further increasing thestudent-teacher ratio to 15:1.

Chart I


Project Management Organization Structure

[ DIRECTOR GENERAL

DIRECTOROF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

[ PROJECT DIRECTOR/

| DEVELOPMENT TEAM l TREASURER

PROJECT BENEFIT MONITORING_ ONSULTANTS L EVALUATION

ISTAFF DEVELOPMENT | PROCUREMENT FACILITY | CURRICULUM ||RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT|AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

MASTERiDOCTO SCHOLARSHIP_ IN-SERVIC-E CII OK QIMN,BOS T.RSEARCH AND POLIC MANAGEMENTPROGRAM_O PROGRAM TRAINING CII RSMN,BOS T.STUDIES DEVELOPMENT

3. SUBJECT-SPECIFIC PEDAGOGY

LINKAGES AND STUDENT SUPPORT 2. ENGLISH

SERVICES 1. SOCIAL SCIENCES

Annex 18 93


Selected Documents and Data Available in the Project File

World Bank Documents

Memorandum of the President of the IBRD to the Executive Directors. "CountryAssistance Strategy of the World Bank Group for Indonesia." Report No. 13988-IND. February 27, 1995.

Project Completion Report. "Indonesia: Second Teacher Training Project (Loan 2101-IND)." Report No. 10217. December 30, 1991

Project Performance Audit Report. "Indonesia: Fourth Education Project (Loan 1237-IND)." Report No. 6312, June 30V 1986.

Project Performance Audit Report. "Indonesia: Fifth Education (First Teacher Training)Project (Loan 1433-IND)." Report No. 6315. June 30, 1986

Staff Appraisal Report. "Indonesia: Primary School Teacher Development Project."Report No. 10399-IND. May 13, 1992.

Project Cost Tables.

Government Documents

Decree of the Minister of Education and Culture. "Coordination Forum for HandlingEducational Manpower Supply and Development System." No. 0461/U/1990.

MOEC. "Project Proposal: Secondary School Teacher Development Project" June 1995._,__ "Operating Guidelines for Link Grants and Research Grants."_,__ "Selection Criteria for National, International Fellowship Training, and Individual

Study Visits."_,__ "Materials Required Prior to Negotiations." November 1995.

."__Inventory of Project Preparation Documents" (For Project Implementation Plan).November 1995.

Raka Joni, T. R. "Creating the Foundation for National Accreditation of Teacher TrainingPrograms in Indonesia." 1989.

Consultant Studies

Somerset, H. C. A. "Quality Issues in General Secondary Education." 1989_ "Secondary Teachers in Indonesia: Supply, Demand and Initial Preparation."

(Final Draft) November 1992van den Berg, E. "Aspects of a Preparation Assistance Mission." July-August, 1994

"Teacher Training Financing in Indonesia."

IBRD 27463

,THAILAND INDONESIA

A Al SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER

BRUNEI , PHILIPPINES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTT7 MALAYS1A \s ,

*2 /Yl \ S Or tPT, P*ROv'CE HEArOURTERS/ -y 2 @ IlTlf STsIP Ts rNTIONA. CA TA

MALAYSIA S 1tTO X C UODAtTCEBO.N.RIES

_C^_SINGAPORE 7 Sr ~~~zarxss ~~~~~~ / / > * >5 7 * ~~~~~~~~24

2 fdong7S \, _A e-.-- cA!

'A -T®A - I.--.- DK A.2 4

_

- JMKAuT JAKeARTA.'

D ACh , 3j''

-:TT GL IAIIT L4Ro 10 5ualln 4 03 S h4|

:AR S' TEiGAs

-&AUA.JR T e 'NG .- @ / M. - -\

- uAFGeEM Dnsr1 27?.>

. MsAlJNGGA .- 2

IINKUL T > .' Bo,o C-oAA; BRoe*RR U. o ,T - Cr-

AURA~ r AUSTRAUA -

1IFKIP U. SYIAH KUALA 7 FKIP U. SRIWIJAYA 13. FKIP U. SEBELAS MARET 1 9. FKIP U. NUSA CENDANA 25. STKIP GORONTALO2, IKIP MEDAN 8 .FKIP U LAMPUNG 14 IKIP SUPABAYA 20. FKIP U TANJUNG PUPA 26 FKIP U TADULAKO3 KIKP PADANG 9 IKIP JAKARTA 15. IKIP MALANG 21. FKIP U. PALANGKARAYA 27 FKIP U HALU OLEO4 FKIP U, RIAU 10. IKIP BANDUNG 16 FKIP U. JEMBER 22. FKIP U. LAMBUNG MANGKURAT 28. IKIP UJUNG PANDANG

SFKIP U. BENGKULU I11 IKIP SEMARANG 17. STKIP SINGARAJA 23 FKIP U. MULAWARMAN 29. FKIP U. PATMUPA6 FKIP U. JAMBI 12. IKIP YOGYAKARTA 18. FKIP U. MATARAM .24. IKIP MANADO 30. FKIP U CENDERAWASIH

31. FKIP U. TERBUKA

SUAKWES, ~ ~ ~ ITAA.l.

IMAGING

REeport No!; 15028 !NDType: S'AP