feasibility of Implementation: Capacity, Efficiency and financing Considerations and Social Equity

Management and Organization

Management and organizational practices vary. There are different management and organizational practices at the provincial and district government levels. These practices can be grouped into two categories, namely organizational structures that have dedicated units and staff for managing and administering RSBI and organizational structures that assign RSBI responsibilities to existing units and staff as additional responsibilities. About 20% of staff time is allotted for RSBI management

68 Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership

and administration under the latter structure. This indicates that the call on manpower is limited, considering that local education units are used to managing a number of projects in addition to routine administration and monitoring. Each MoEC directorate has its own implementation and monitoring guidelines which adds a burden at the local government level where education units must handle four different RSBI programs. The evaluation data show the program is not effective in conducting monitoring and following up with plans for improvement. The study also found that structures that have dedicated units for RSBI management tend to do more in-depth monitoring and evaluation and reporting (see below). 12% of the City/District Education Offices visited reported no responsibility for

RSBI. One of the study Provincial Dinas offices reported no responsibility for RSBI, with the study District

reporting the same.

Provincial and district staff who handle RSBI responsibilities have not received special training on

RSBI management, administration and monitoring and evaluation. Some of these staff have received

“socialization” regarding the purposes and implementation procedures either directly from MoEC or from superiors who received the socialization and passed the information on to others in the organization. Some who received the information have been transferred to other units and in many cases information specific to RSBI is not passed on to replacements. All MoEC directorates have published implementation manuals and guidelines, but the extent to which staff understands or refer to them varies. This negatively affects capacity for management, which results in inefficiencies in the system.

Financing Considerations

The majority of funds from parents and government are meant to cover infrastructure and equipment costs for SD and SMP RSBI schools, while BOS provides operational costs; SMK receive a special subsidy from the central budget for operations; SMA do not receive subsidies for operations. While regular government schools that receive BOS cannot charge fees, RSBI are exempt and therefore may use fees and contributions to cover operational costs. We believe this is an efficient and effective policy considering that operational and maintenance costs for enhanced equipment would be much more

than that provided by BOS30_.

The evaluation found evidence that some provinces conduct intensive monitoring to measure the gap between the current status of facilities and equipment, for example, and the standards imposed by regulations. However, there is no evidence that monitoring data is used for determining government financial inputs in the form of block grants. Thus, RSBI must rely on fees and contributions for additional funds for infrastructure investments in addition to topping up operational costs. In terms of meeting current infrastructure standards, this has not proved to be an efficient or effective mechanism in that, for example, only 50% RSBI in the sample had fulfilled the requirement that each classroom have ICT equipment.

This state of affairs is due in large part to MoEC funding patterns. For example, schools that received block grants were divided into four sets where the first set of schools received block grants over a period of four years, the second batch received block grants for three years and the third set only received block grants for two years, with the size of the grants relatively constant. There is no indication that an assessment was done to determine the number of grants a school received. In terms of government funding to help schools meet ISS standards, this system has neither been efficient nor effective. Based on the analysis of student performance compared with national exam scores, the RSBI program as it is currently constituted cannot be considered to be cost effective. However, there is sufficient evidence both from the evaluation and from other relevant national and international studies that the program has the potential to improve overall quality of education in Indonesian.

Chapter 5Summary Analysis

Social Equity Considerations

In this section, we discuss the RSBI financial structures and their connection with equity and access, particularly for poor and disadvantaged students. In terms of finance, we provide a detailed financial analysis in our report that gives a financial profile of the program. As can be seen from our findings, on a unit cost basis, the ISS program is quite expensive as compared to non-RSBI schools. Considering this financial reality, a few questions immediately arise: Is this cost justified? What has our evaluation shown to support or refute the ISS policy on financial grounds? And finally, if the ISS program is sustained in some form or degree, what is the evidence that supports that this is a good investment, and is there any precedent that justifies continuation of the program?

In terms of equity and access, a further set of questions arise: Is the ISS program fair in terms of social equity? Is the current financial structure—i.e. ability to levy fees on parents—inherently biased towards the middle and upper class? If fees were removed, how would this change the situation? Would canceling the program serve the benefit of Indonesian people? What could be done to improve the uptake of low- income students if the current fee structure is sustained?

The above questions are on policymakers’ and stakeholders’ minds. We will address each of above questions in terms of our evaluation and other countries practices regarding improving equity and access, particularly as they relate to finance.

It would be remiss to just look at the financial implications alone, and not consider the overall justification of the program in terms of social equity and access. The chief argument against the program coming from high-ranking, influential stakeholders is that the program is inherently unfair. It can be argued that by charging parents fees, coupled with a questionably effective low-income recruitment policy, low income students are being disproportionately excluded. We feel this argument has a degree of merit; but should it out-weigh all other considerations, including policy adjustment and program improvement, and be a reason to cancel the program?

To address this issue, we make another assumption: Indonesia can learn from our evaluation situation analysis, and from international best practices, and successfully apply program improvement measures that enable the RSBI system and schools to reach equity and access targets, and continue to improve their overall teaching and learning quality to meet the vision of the program.

We feel that the key findings from our evaluation, other than assessment of compliance against selected indicators, arethe measured and perceived impediments schools are encountering that constrain the schools from reaching their full potential: English as a medium of instruction (discussed at the beginning of this chapter); international accreditation; adoption of international curriculum; reaching the required percentage of S2 teachers; lack of coherence in teacher professional development program offerings; effective integration of ICT; and no formative monitoring for school performance improvement. To mitigate these barriers and constraints, we provide policy recommendations in Option 3 below in the Recommendations chapter. The one remaining finding/issue we will discuss in length relates to equity and access.

We are particularly concerned that schools have not reached the 20% quota for low-income students. Our data shows that overall, only 12% of total enrolment in RSBI is from low-income families. Our disaggregated data on how close schools are to reaching this quota (See Charts 30-33, Section 5.3.9); indicate that many schools are well below the compliance requirement, and far from achieving the minimum standard. We can infer from these data that availability of “full paying customers” could be a disincentive for RSBI to meet the low-income quota. And of course, there are likely other factors at play here, including those based in the opinions that low-income students on scholarships are discriminated against and bullied, or that low-income students are difficult to recruit due to overall low academic performance within their socio-economic bracket, or are in low numbers in big city communities such

70 Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership

as Jakarta Selatan. The question then is: can these impediments and barriers be overcome to make RSBI more accessible and equitable?

If we come back to the case of South Korea, we can see a precedent to support the argument to keep the SBI program, but substantive changes would need to occur to make it more effective, particularly for

inclusion of low-income and marginalized students.31 _{Korea has comprehensive programs to help raise}

the academic level of low-income and marginalized students. They have special in-school programs that help low-income students overcome socio-economic-related under achievement. Korea has implemented academic and social counseling in schools, mentorship programs, and has extended these programs to parents. They have provided vouchers for extracurricular activities and other enrichment programs. With a clear policy focus with clear guidelines, Korea has helped to raise the education opportunities for all, and has put in place the support systems necessary to provide opportunity for all. Indonesia can learn from these and other countries’ programs to help improve the uptake and retention of low-income students.

One low-income quota policy issue remains. Anecdotal reports indicate that paying students resent non-paying students in schools, and the situation serves to create a social divide in some schools, and causes significant bullying and divisiveness. Possible sources of this type of the resentment could be due to the fact that low income students are receiving scholarships. Other sources of resentment might originate from social, cultural, and language differences. We don’t know how widespread this is, but it is a social issue that needs to be addressed. We feel that the issue may go beyond RSBI. Policy adjustment recommendations must include provision to reduce these social tensions, which may include implementing sensitivity programs or other harmonization measures.

5.5 Conclusions

To go back to the questions posed at the beginning of this section: Is the ISS program cost justified? We feel that it is because of its potential to be a portal for inserting international best practices into the Indonesian education system, and qualitative perceptions of the school community support this. Is the program inherently biased towards the middle and upper classes? Our low-income quota data also support this, but we feel that this is not a reason to cancel the program on the grounds that intervention and active recruitment programs will help to mitigate the bias (see Option 3 in Recommendations below). Would canceling the program serve the benefit of the Indonesia people? Our evidence and experience in the evaluation indicate that canceling the program would not serve to improve education quality. Although issues of equity exist, the investment in the schools will serve to exemplify necessary measures that can be applied to all schools, and create an opportunity to fully develop aspects of education for national improvement. To support a positive transformation in the program, a more supportive and formative system is needed, and necessary capacity building at the Education Office level will be essential.

31 See:http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/ south-korea-overview/

32 Although RSBI students outperform based on national averages, the data are inconclusive because the national averages include schools at all levels of accreditation, whereas almost all RSBI in the sample were already at level “A” accreditation.

Chapter 6