1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1.1 Survey of District Management of Education
1.1.1 Finance and Planning
Education takes up the largest portion of district budgets - APBD - of any sector. In 2003, it ranges between 29.4 % in Batang and 47.7 % in Pati. About 90% of education budget in all districts is allocated to personnel. Large differences in expenditure are evident, with expenditure per child being over twice as high in Pacitan (the highest Rp. 1.04 million) as in Batang (the lowest Rp. 465,000) (2003 figures).
School operational costs, including the allocation for teaching and learning process, is low in all districts. In 2003, the amount per unit ranges from Rp 14,000 in Probolinggo (the lowest) to Rp 49,000 in Pati (the highest). It indicates that the improvement of school quality has not been in high priority in resource terms.
There is little or no coordinated and needs based planning for the education sector in any of the districts. Planning is done one year at a time and there is often a lack of continuity between one year's plan and the following year. The budget sent to the district government budget team is generally more of a 'wish list' based on the previous year's budget, rather than being based on a long term plan which has been developed from a needs analysis.
There is no substantial allocation of funding to schools in any of the districts to support school based management. The only grants received by school are from provincial and central levels from a variety of GOI and donor funded projects.
Where grants have been given to school committees to manage, especially for rehabilitation of buildings, there is general agreement in all districts that the results are much more satisfactory than if the funds are managed at district level and tendered for by local contractors.
In several districts school mapping and data collection was undertaken in 1999-2000, before decentralisation and no updating of the data has taken place since. Central government reports that its annual census of schools in 2002 yielded only a 30% response rate, compared to 80% in 2000. Where routine data collection from schools takes place, it is, according to districts, in all cases used only for reporting and not for planning.
1.1.2 Management Issues
Teacher Deployment: Large differences in staffing ratios are apparent. The pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) for SD ranges from 24.1:1 in Batang to only 14.7:1 in Pacitan. That means that there is one teacher for every 14.7 pupils in Pacitan. Despite these generous staffing ratios, all districts complain of shortages of teachers. Distribution of teachers is a prime problem. In one cluster of schools surveyed in one sub-district one school has a ratio of 1 teacher to 6.7 pupils, (120 pupils and 18 teachers), compared to another with a ratio of 1:29.
Rationalisation of Facilities: Falling roles in primary schools have meant that many schools have small numbers of pupils. Programs of school mergers and closures have been running in some districts for the past 5 - 6 years. In all areas school data to support school mergers was found by our consultants to be incomplete or probably inaccurate.
In rural areas where schools are often far apart and mergers are not possible, there is need to establish multi-grade schools. Both school mergers and the establishment of multi-grade schools should enable buildings to be taken out of commission and excess teachers to be redeployed.
School Enrolment: In all of the districts most primary school pupils are already attending school. However, enrolment rates in junior secondary school range from a very low 44% in Problinggo to 84% in Batang. An estimated 35% - 65% of junior secondary school age population still are not attending school. Reasons for non-attendance are various, but include lack of provision of infrastructure in some areas and a perceived lack of relevance of secondary education and economic necessity.
Maintenance of School Facilities: There is a large difference between the condition of schools in Banyuwangi, where only 5.7% of SD classrooms are classed as in need of major repair compared to 25%, 31.4% and 29.7% respectively in Batang, Probolinggo and Pacitan. The condition of primary schools (particularly SD) is much worse than secondary schools (particularly SMP).
There appears to be no integrated program for rehabilitation in any of the districts based on a list of priorities. Where grants are given from various national and donor projects to repair building, the funds are generally managed by school committees, as required by the rules of each project. However, APBD funding for rehabilitation is still managed at district level in all districts.
1.1.3 Dewan Pendidikan and School Committees
A ministerial decree (no. 044/U/2002) has required the establishment of Dewan Pendidikan in each district and School Committees for each school. The role of each is defined as advising, supporting and controlling and mediating. In all districts the role of the Dewan Pendidikan is much more limited. In most cases it is confined to giving advice and training to school committees.
School committees have largely taken over the role of the old BP3 and confine their activities to fund raising. Only in a number of school in Probolinggo, where they have been influenced by SBM programs, have a number of committees started to be involved in school planning and the monitoring of school activities and the use of funds.
1.2 Survey of Target Schools
1.2.1 School Based Management
Planning: In most schools surveyed their concept of planning was confined to short term routine ad hoc planning to cover needs as they arise. Most junior secondary schools had plans, but most primary schools did not. The planning that was done included planning of items such as school events, repairs and maintenance and materials and book purchases. In most cases the principal, teachers and members of the school committee were involved. None of the schools are yet implementing strategic planning to determine the overall development of the school.
Budgets: Most of the schools had a recorded budget (RAPBS). In most cases the budget was confined to funds raised by the school committee. Other funds, especially those received from local government (APBD) appeared in most schools to be off-budget. There appears to be no standard way of presenting budgets or of what needs to appear in the budgets. Book keeping in primary schools was especially poor. It was often the work of the principal alone, whereas staff were employed for the task in most junior secondary schools.
Funding: Overall funds received by junior secondary schools was almost twice as much per pupil as for primary schools. Funding for junior secondary schools from districts (APBD) was four times as much per pupil as funding for primary schools. The funding of Rp.10,799 for primary school pupils is derisory and reflects a low priority given to improving the quality of education.
APBN funding was generally in the form of substantial one-off grants to support physical improvements, including school renovation and minor building works and school improvement programs. Funding per pupil through these grants by junior secondary schools was three times as large as that received by primary schools, while the data on the condition of schools shows clearly that the condition of primary schools is much worse than junior secondary schools.
Teacher Development: In all districts primary and junior secondary schools have already been grouped in clusters. Primary schools have Teachers' Working Group Meetings (KKG) and Junior Secondary Teachers have Subject Teachers' Discusion Groups (MGMP). However, the clusters do not include Madrasahs, who have their own Madrasah Working Groups (KKM). The meeting appear to be confined to discussions of teaching and learning, none of the teachers interviewed gave any examples of practical activities such as making learning materials or trialling lessons.
