Recommendations Child Poverty and Disparities

114 coverage of basic education, reducing the school participation gap between children in urban and rural areas, and improving the quality of basic education services. To this end, several important and large scale programmes have been crafted and implemented over the past several decades. One particular programme that laid the foundation for increased equality in access to primary education was the ‘Sekolah Dasar Inpres’ programme. This programme was implemented between 1973 and 1978, during which time the government constructed one primary school building for every 1,000 children in each district and recruited the additional teachers needed for the new schools. With US500 million in funding, more than 61,000 primary schools were established across districts, while the number of teachers increased by 43 per cent over the period Duflo, 2001. This programme significantly raised enrolment rates among children aged 7–12 years, from 69 per cent in 1973 to 83 per cent in 1978. The impact of this programme on these children’s futures and the quality of education services across regions, genders, social economic groups, and among education services that are implemented by the government and by private institutions. In order to attain these goals, the Ministry of National Education has outlined more strategic and specific plans in their Strategic Plan 2010– 2014 Rencana Strategis, Renstra. In comparison to the previous Strategic Plan 2004–2009, the current Strategic Plan places more emphasis on increasing equitability and ensuring access to educational services Table 4.1, whereas the 2004–2009 plan paid more attention to improving the quality of education and education management.

4.2 Key national education programmes

As a developing nation, Indonesia still faces challenges in achieving universal or near- universal coverage at every level of education. Hence, inarguably, the emphasis of government intervention in the education sector should primarily be focused on achieving universal Source:฀Ministry฀of฀National฀Education฀Kementerian฀Pendidikan฀Nasional,฀Strategic฀Plan฀2010–2014 Notes:฀NER=net฀enrolment฀rate;฀GER=gross฀enrolment฀rate Table 4.1: Strategic objectives of national education policy, 2010–2014 Level Early childhood education ECE Primary education SDMIPaket A Junior secondary SMPMTsPaket B Senior secondary SMAMASMK Strategic objectives - National GER ≥ 72.9 - At least 75 of provinces have GER ≥ 60 - At least 75 of cities have GER ≥ 75; at least 75 of districts have GER ≥ 50 - Teacher qualifications: o Formal ECE: 85 have a universitydiploma degree, and 85 have a certificate o Informal ECE: 55 have been trained - National NER ≥ 96 - At least 85 of provinces have NER ≥ 95 - At least 90 of cities have NER ≥ 96; at least 90 of districts have NER ≥ 94 - Enrolment rate of children aged 7-12 is 99.9 - Teacher-student ratio from 1:20 to 1:28 - National NER 76.8 - National GER ≥ 110 - At least 90 of provinces have GER ≥ 95 - At least 80 of cities have GER ≥ 115; at least 85 of districts have GER ≥ 90 - Enrolment rate of children aged 13-15 is 96 - Teacher-student ratio from 1:20 to 1:32 - National GER ≥ 85 - At least 60 of provinces have GER ≥ 80 - At least 65 of cities have GER ≥ 85; at least 70 of districts have GER ≥ 65. 115 has been interesting. Despite the questionable quality of the education being delivered at these new schools, Duflo 2001 observed good economic returns, of approximately 6–10 per cent, implied by a 1.5–2.7 per cent increase in wages for individuals who went to primary schools established through this programme. Various education programmes have been implemented since then, all designed to stimulate both the supply of and the demand for education, with the over-arching goal of providing equal access to education for every child. Some of the important ongoing programmes are as follows:

1. School Operational Assistance BOS: Starting in 2005, the government launched the School

Operational Assistance Programme Bantuan Operasional Sekolah , BOS. The objective of this programme was to lighten the burden of education costs on communities, in order to support more children achieving the goal of at least nine years of basic education. Initially, the programme was part of a fuel subsidy removal compensation programme, but later it became part of a poverty reduction programme. In 2009, the government added an additional objective to the BOS programme: to raise the quality of education. In line with this new objective, in 2009 the allocation of funds to BOS also rose significantly Table 4.2. Over the last five years the coverage and unit costs of BOS have improved. According to the BOS guidelines, all state schools were obliged to accept BOS funds and any school that refused would be prohibited from levying costs from students. All private schools with operating permission, and which were not being developed as international standard schools sekolah bertaraf internasional, SBI or local superior standard schools, were obliged to accept BOS funds. Schools could only refuse BOS funds if they obtained the agreement of parents by guaranteeing to continue educating poor students. The role of regional governments in the implementation of the BOS programme was to restrict schools from collecting tuition fees from poor students or excessive tuition fees from students who were not poor. If BOS funds were not sufficient, the local government was obliged to make up the shortfall from its own budget. Several districts provided additional ‘District BOS’ funds from their local budgets. The BOS programme funds were managed autonomously by schools in consultation with school committees. The funds could be used to finance various activities and school needs within certain limitations. They could not be kept long-term to earn interest, loaned to other parties, or used for substantial or major renovations, expansion construction, or activities that were already being funded by the central or regional government either wholly or in part, such as paying the salaries of contract Table 4.2: School operational assistance BOS funding allocation and budget developments, 2005−2010 Funding allocation IDRstudentyear Budget IDR trillions Number of students millions Primary school rural Primary school urban Junior secondary school rural Junior secondary school urban Primary school Junior secondary school 235 324.5 5.13 28.9 10.7 235 324.5 10.28 29.1 10.6 254 354 9.84 26.4 8.9 254 354 11.2 28.7 11.1 397 400 570 575 16.2 26 9.8 397 400 570 575 16.5 27.6 9.6 Issue 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source:฀Ministry฀of฀National฀Education,฀2005–2009;฀National฀Budget฀2010.฀ Note:฀The฀BOS฀budget฀for฀2005฀was฀only฀for฀one฀semester 116 teachers or assistant teachers guru bantu. The funds were channeled through a bank or post office to each school every quarter based on the number of enrolled students.

2. Scholarships for Poor Students Bantuan Siswa Miskin

, BSM: Starting in 2008, the government significantly increased its scholarship budget and reach, from a coverage of 52,121 students in 2007 to approximately 698,570 students in 2008 Agustina et al., 2009. Beginning at the same time, the scholarships were targeted only at poor students for primary and junior secondary levels of education, instead of the former target group which consisted of students with high levels of academic achievement. The programme aimed to improve access to basic education for children from poor families. The unit cost per scholarship ranged between IDR60,000 and IDR720,000 depending on the level and type of school the student was attending. Poor students enrolled in madrasah Islamic schools received a higher amount than those in regular schools. In 2009 the scholarships supported 1.8 million students in primary schools or approximately 6.9 per cent of the total number of students enrolled at this level Agustina et al., 2009. The scholarships were managed centrally by the Ministry of National Education. Scholarship quotas were allocated for each district based on the number of students from poor families and Primary Junior secondary Islamic primary MI Islamic junior secondary MTs Total 69,857 27,606 360 280 1,338,570 1,796,800 710,057 640 540 3,688,866 360,000 531,000 360,000 720,000 2.7 3.0 12.5 11.9 6.9 7.8 22.3 23.0 251.48 146.6 129.6 201.6 729.35 646.848 377.04 230.4 388.8 1,643.088 School of all students Total of scholarship budget IDR million 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 20082009 Number of students covered Unit cost IDR per yearstudent Table 4.3: Coverage and cost of the scholarships for poor students programme, 2008–2009 Source:฀Agustina฀et฀al.,฀2009 the poverty conditions in each district. Education offices at the district level then selected the student beneficiaries. The scholarship funds were disbursed from the Ministry of National Education directly to the central post office and channeled to the district post offices annually. The scholarship funds could then be withdrawn directly by students or their parentsguardians or collectively through schools Agustina et al., 2010.

3. The New Schools and New Classroom Construction Programme Program

Pembangunan Unit Sekolah Baru dan Pembangunan Ruang Kelas Baru : In remote areas, particularly in the eastern part of Indonesia, until 19992000 access to secondary schools both junior and senior was still limited, resulting in low enrolment rates at the secondary school level. Given these conditions, starting in 20002001, each year the central government allocated funds to build new schools as well as new classrooms. In villages where the number of primary school graduates was too small but the nearest junior secondary school was too far, the government built ‘One Roof’ junior secondary schools, attached to existing primary schools, in order that they could share some of the facilities and teachers belonging to the primary school. Table 4.4 provides information on the number of junior and senior secondary schools built and the allocated budgets. 117

4. Early Childhood Education, ECE Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini

, PAUD: The conclusion of many studies in a number of countries converged in agreement that early childhood education ECE–during the years before the start of formal schooling –provides short-term and long-term positive impacts in terms of children’s cognitive and non-cognitive development. Based on data on the long-term impacts of ECE on children in poverty, Barnett 1998 found that ECE provided persistent and positive effects on achievement and academic success. Moreover, he further found that the economic returns from providing ECE to poor children far exceeded the cost. This evidence led to calls for further empirical studies on the effects of various policies and interventions to determine which forms would be most beneficial and effective. A recent study by Barnett 2010 found that children in 23 countries experienced the greatest cognitive benefits from programmes containing educational or stimulation components rather than from cash transfer or nutritional programmes. In the case of Indonesia, the emphasis of education policies was confined to stimulating the supply side through the progressive construction of buildings across the country. Starting in 2006 the Ministry of National Education through collaboration with the World Bank and the Kingdom of the Netherlands implemented a new programme to promote ECE, specifically aimed at improving access to ECE Activities Target Target Target Target Budget Budget Budget Budget 2007 2008 2009 2006 Table 4.4: New schools and classrooms built, 2006–2009 Note:฀Budget฀is฀in฀millions฀of฀IDR Source:฀Ministry฀of฀National฀Education,฀various฀years 427 13,273 749 101 2,354 66 334 579.8 730.015 255.6 86.96 174.825 33.0 45.23 564 9,113 983 28 1,479 181 972 684.187 510.328 na 20.475 111.065 126.7 150.15 500 10,949 759 29 803 214 3,289 650.0 656.94 309.1 25.0 80.325 149.8 248.09 177 2 - 10 780 195 3,656 na na na na na na na for children from poor households. The program hopes that by 2013 it will reach approximately 738,000 children, particularly from poor households, in 3,000 villages stretched across 50 districts in 21 provinces. The total budget for this programme was approximately US127.74 million, made up of a government budget central and regional of US34.94 million with additional funding provided by multinational donors and institution grants. The project provided block grants to communities where residents decided how best to deliver ECE services. In addition, the programme prepared 32 national trainers, 200 provincialdistrict trainers and around 6,000 community-based teachers to promote child development. National trainers train the provincialdistrict trainers, who then train the community-based teachers to implement ECE.

5. The National Examination System Ujian Akhir Nasional, UAN; Ujian Nasional,UN: The

ambitious goal of this system was to promote comparable levels of academic achievement among students across all provinces in the country, whether in state or private schools. Prior to this national examination system the name of which was changed from ‘UAN’ to ‘UN’ in 2005, there was a different system called Ebtanas. The most significant and controversial difference between the two examination systems was in the way they determined students able to Junior secondary New schools New classrooms ‘One Roof’ primary-junior secondary Senior secondary New schools New classrooms Vocational senior secondary SMK New schools New classrooms