Early Childhood Professional Development in Indonesia— Steps Toward a System

ECPD in Indonesia:Steps Toward a System

Background Indonesia is the 4th most populous country in the world,

right after the US. Recent economic growth has not created equitable

benefits. Indonesian children rank near the bottom on most international

comparisons of academic achievement. High numbers of poor children have stunted growth, limiting both

physical and intellectual development Families in poor communities have few resources to stimulate early

development and learning Few poor children have access to affordable early childhood services

Low ECD program enrollment rates for Indonesia’s poorest and youngest

Poorest 20% Richest 20% Poorest 20% Richest 20%Age 0-3: Age 4-6:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2% 5%

19%

46%

1%5%

25%

59%

ECD Enrollment Rates

2004 2007

The Early Childhood Education and Development ProjectGoals: The Government of Indonesia and The World Bank created the “ECED Project” to:

• Increase integrated ECED service delivery through community-driven mechanisms in targeted poor communities;

• Develop a sustainable system for ECED quality; and• Establish effective management, monitoring, and evaluation.

Direct Services: Early childhood services (mainly playgroups for children 3-6) have been established in 50 out of 400 districts, targeted by poverty.

• 6000 early childhood centers in 3,000 villages.• Staffed by 12,000 trained village teachers• Serving 500,000 children to date

Professional Development and the ECED Project

A key aspect of the project. World Bank supported govt to

Develop standards Create national leadership team Train trainers, and Implement PD in the field

The “WHO”

Potential PD participants Village women selected by communities, secondary

school grads or below, highly motivated. Selected to serve in two different positions (teachers

of 3-6 and “child development workers” with 0-3 and families)

PD Providers: Master trainers and district trainers Many with little background in early education and

development

Challenges and Opportunities: Difficult to create basic competence among large

numbers in in short time frame Opportunity to create sustainable leadership and

commitment at all levels

The “WHAT” PD content developed by national team with consultant

Content organized into 16 modules, total 200 hours in two 100-hour clusters

Content strengths

Broad range of topics relevant to EC staff Strong emphasis on child development knowledge Strong module on concepts of DAP (Developmentally Appropriate

Practice)

Content gaps Little or no emphasis on 0-3; focus on center-based programs for 3-

6-year-olds Little content on parenting/family engagement in the ECED program Over-emphasis on theory and factual knowledge, much less on

practices

The “HOW” Cascade training: National trainers District trainers

Village ECED program personnel Potential strengths Methods not well adapted methods to participants’ prior

knowledge and roles Methods began with relatively didactic approach but

modified over time Modules presented by different trainers

Allowed trainer expertise to develop Made large-scale delivery more practical May have minimized opportunities to develop close relationships

with participants Initial training seldom followed by coaching or supportive

supervision

A Story of Mis-Alignment of the Who, What, and How

Some Reasons for the Lack of Alignment

National team expertise was strongest on content for center-based programs for ages 3-6.

Ministerial organization—Directorate overseeing this project did not have responsibility for birth-3, family, health, etc.

Training of Trainers not strong on interactive, flexible methods—some trainers had those skills, others not.

Plans for supervision and coaching were limited by budget, expertise, and distance to villages

What Difference Did Professional Development Make? We Do Not

Know Yet

We Know That ECED Services Have Begun to Affect Enrollment and Child Outcomes in

Project Villages

• The evaluation design randomly assigned villages to receive ECED services

• Child outcomes were assessed for sample of children in villages—not necessarily children who were enrolled in services

• ECED enrollment increased in “project villages”

• Average effects on child outcomes are small so far

• BUT project services have had larger effects on child development outcomes for those most at risk:▫ Children from poorer families▫ Children who had never been to ECED services before the project services

began▫ Children with parents who had poorer parenting practices

Impact of Professional Development on Project Outcomes Is Unknown

Evaluation design did not include any way to assess the impact of the content and delivery of professional development on program quality or child outcomes.

Final project evaluation (endline) will collect program quality data at classroom level

Promising Directions for the Future

Government scaling up early childhood services based on positive outcomes from this project

Government has piloted new PD initiatives (internships; mentoring; teacher cluster groups)

Parenting programs are new govt priority

Ministry of Education has new directorate specifically responsible for ECPD Plans to evaluate all professional development

activities Currently re-examining all existing teacher

training materials and methods with focus on strengthening overall quality, including the WHO/WHAT/HOW connections

For More Information

Early Childhood Education and Development in Poor Villages of Indonesia: Strong Foundations, Later Success

Amer Hasan, Marilou Hyson, & Mae Chu Chang, Editors. Washington, DC: The

World Bank.

Ordering information (book available June 26) at: http://publications.worldbank.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=24515

Thank You! Terima Kasih!