the dbe1 service provider program; an evaluation...renstra 7 at the same time in 2010 dbe1 worked...

Decentralized Basic Education 1: Management and Governance

The DBE1 Service Provider

Program; an Evaluation

March 2011

This report is one of a series of special reports produced by Research Triangle Institute (RTI), Implementing Partner for the USAID-funded Improved Quality of Decentralized Basic Education (IQDBE) program in Indonesia

The DBE1 Service Provider

Program; an Evaluation Contract 497-M-00-05-00029-00 Prepared for USAID/Indonesia Prepared by RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Post Office Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Table of Contents

Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................... ii Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 Program overview .......................................................................................... 2 Program evaluation; the methodology ............................................................ 3 The UPI school level program, West Java ..................................................... 4 The Sampoerna Foundation school-level program ........................................ 8 The UPI district program, West Java ............................................................ 11 The UMS district program, Central Java ...................................................... 14 The UNM district program, South Sulawesi.................................................. 18 Lessons Learned .......................................................................................... 21 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 24 Appendix 1: Survey Instrument – Service Provider Evaluation, March

2011 .............................................................................................. 27 Appendix 2: Report on evaluation of Service Provider Program, UPI,

December 2009 ............................................................................. 30 Appendix 3: Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary ................................... 35

The DBE1 Service Provider Program; an Evaluation 1

Introduction

The key strategy for both dissemination and sustainability in DBE1 is to

develop facilitators and service providers who can take over the program,

using the manuals and training modules developed under the project, and

implement it in districts - without further project support. The main agent for

dissemination and sustainability of school level programs is the large group of

trained ‘district facilitators’. Meanwhile for district level interventions, and to

some extent also for school level programs, DBE1 has been working with a

group of universities and one NGO.

For the purposes of DBE1, there are three types of ‘service provider’:

1. institutions which are independent of the schools and education

systems to which they provide a service, consisting of training and

consultancy; these are universities and potentially NGOs and

independent consulting agencies;

2. institutions from within the education system which provide a similar

service; these potentially include government agencies such as LPMP

and, for example, the West Java provincial education office which may

provide a service facilitating implementation of the asset management

system in districts; and

3. ‘District facilitators’; who are individuals trained by DBE1 to facilitate

school level programs; the majority of these are school supervisors

(pengawas) working under district education offices.

This report focuses on the first type. It does not consider the role of ‘district

facilitators’ in disseminating DBE1’s school level programs. This program has

been evaluated in depth in a previous report.1 Nor does it consider the role of

government agencies as service providers as it is too soon to do so.

One other type of agency which has become active in disseminating DBE1

methodologies is the implementation teams for other donor-funded projects,

including the World Bank’s BEC-TF and AusAID’s SEDIA, which have

begun disseminating district level interventions. These actors, although very

significant, are outside the scope of the current evaluation.

The purposes of this evaluation report are:

1. to assess the effectiveness of the service provider program,

2. to assess the interest and commitment of each service provider

organization in further developing the program in 2011, and

3. to identify lessons learnt in order to improve future programs.

1 DBE1, July 2010, Implementing School-Based Management in Indonesia, The DBE1 Experience: 2005 – 2010: Impact Study

2 The DBE1 Service Provider Program; an Evaluation

Program overview

In 2009, DBE1 ran a pilot program to develop the Indonesian University of

Education (UPI) in Bandung as service provider. Following this pilot, in late

2009 two more universities were selected to be developed as service providers

for district-level activity, making a total of three for the 2010 program: in

West Java the Indonesian University of Education, or Universitas Pendidikan

Indonesia (UPI), in Central Java Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta

(UMS), and in South Sulawesi Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM). The

NGO, PATTIRO, 2

was also selected but was later dropped from the program

as described below. Each of these institutions provided personnel to work with

DBE1 specialists in implementing core methodologies in one newly identified

district in each of the three provinces. Table 1, below, shows the number of

personnel trained in each program. It should be noted that although these

persons have received several days of classroom and on-the-job training, they

have yet to be certified. Criteria for certification will be developed in the first

half of 2011.

Table 1: District Level Service Provider Personnel Trained 2010

Program Number trained

BOSP 7

AKPK 7

SIPPK 7

Renstra 7

At the same time in 2010 DBE1 worked with the Sampoerna Foundation’s

School of Education (SSE) to develop their capacity as a service provider for

DBE1’s school level programs.

The original stated objectives of the service provider program are as follows:

1. To reach agreements with institutions of higher education, NGOs or

consulting organizations to authorize institutional associates to

participate in the Service Providers training program

2. To train and certify a cadre of professionals to provide services to

assist and improve capacities of local governments in education

finance analysis and education development planning and policy

development

3. To link DBE1 trained Service Providers to potential clients such as

districts or private school networks.

2 Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional


The Sampoerna Foundation program was evaluated in workshops held at the

SSE campus in Jakarta in August 2010 and March 2011. Also in March 2011

the university partnership program was evaluated in a series of joint

workshops held with each of the three partner universities. This report is a

result of that evaluation. In addition, the report takes into account information

from a number of secondary sources, including:

1. DBE1 progress reports, including annual and quarterly reports;

2. internal reports on (1) monitoring and evaluation of the school level

program conducted by DBE1 and UPI in West Java in December 2009,

(2) a meeting between DBE1 and UPI in February 2011, and (3) a

report from the coordinator of the program in UPI.

Program evaluation; the methodology

This evaluation considers both the perspectives of DBE1 and the perspectives

of the service providers. In order to gain the DBE1 perspective, reports from

specialists and advisors were considered along with a report of monitoring and

evaluation conducting in West Java in 2009.

In order to obtain the service provider perspective, a series of one-day

workshops was conducted in March 2011 with each of the three partner

universities. A report from the director of UPI’s research body (LPPM) was

also considered. The Sampoerna Foundation program was evaluated in

workshops conducted in August 2010 and March 2011.

The methodology employed: (1) a survey instrument (see Appendix 1) to elicit

the responses of individuals (participants and program supervisors) from each

institution, and (2) a focus-group discussion approach to further explore

responses to the questions. (In the case of the Sampoerna Foundation

evaluation only the second method was used.) The following questions formed

the basis of the individual survey instrument and focus group discussion

questions.

Individual Perspective

1. Why did you decide to join the DBE1 Service Provider program?

2. Did the program meet your expectations? Did you get what you were

hoping for?

3. What did you learn?

4. What do you need to learn more of in order to be an effective 'service

provider'?

Organizational Perspective

5. Did this program meet the needs of your organization / university?

6. Is the idea of being a 'service provider' in line with the vision and

mission of your organization?

7. Do you think there is a market for this service? Who? Where?


8. How your organization can better meet the demands / needs of the

market?

9. How could DBE1 help you to achieve these objectives?

10. Has the DBE1 program provided you with content that assists you in

your core work (teaching, research etc.)?

General

11. Are you interested to join the program in 2011 Service Provider (if

any)?

12. How could the program be improved?

Analysis of the individual and group survey responses, together with the other

sources mentioned is summarized below. The two programs which aimed to

prepare service providers for school-level interventions are discussed first,

followed by the three programs with service providers for district level

interventions. The report then concludes with a summary of lessons learned

and recommendations.

The UPI school level program, West Java

The program

In 2009 DBE1 formed a partnership with service provider UPI to disseminate

school level programs. A series of training events was delivered to prepare

university lecturers to train and mentor final-year education students during

their obligatory community service program (KKN) who, in turn, trained and

mentored schools in the basic components of school based management:

school committee strengthening, SDS, school development planning.

A team of ten senior advisors and specialists from DBE1 provided the

intensive training to 24 UPI personnel over nine days, in three sessions, in

May-June 2009. The training commenced with school visits and concluded in

the third session with a focus on district level interventions.

Also participating were representatives of the Provincial Education Office,

Provincial MORA office and provincial LPMP. Keynote addresses were given

by senior personnel from MONE’s Secretariat for School-Based Management

under the Directorate for Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling, the Head of

the Provincial Education Office (Kepala Dinas Pendidikan Provinsi Jawa

Barat), Assistant Rector and senior academic staff of UPI, the Head of the

District Education Office from Sukabumi and Karawang districts and USAID.

Subsequently, in collaboration with the West Java Provincial Education Office

and UPI, leadership training was provided for 100 elementary school heads

from target schools in Kabupaten Bandung Barat and Kota Cimahi to prepare

them for the program ahead of the KKN student placements. The workshop

took place at UPI campus in Bandung in July and was provided by the staff

who joined the TOT program. The training for 1,000 KKN students was also


provided in July. The KKN was then conducted over one month from July 24

to August 29, 2009.

Working in teams of 10 or so, the students assisted the schools over a one

month period; 37 in Cimahi and 63 in West Bandung District, to produce

school plans (RKS) and in some cases introduced the DBE1 School Database

System (SDS).

The DBE1 perspective

The following is based mainly on the findings of monitoring and evaluation

conducted in December 2009 to assess the impact of the program.3

In December 2009 a DBE1 team visited 26 schools, 26% of the 100 schools

that received assistance under the program. The purpose of the monitoring was

to determine the extent to which DBE1’s school-based management

methodologies had been successfully implemented at school level through this

program. The monitoring consisted of school visits and interviews with

principals and teachers as well as reviews of documents including SDS and

RKS.

It was found that, on average, each school was allocated approximately 11-13

students, coordinated by a field supervisor from UPI who visited the school

once a week. Most schools regarded the KKN students as active enough in

helping the school; furthermore quite a number of the KKN students wanted to

teach in the classroom, although their primary task was school based

management. As a result of the intervention, all schools had formed KK-RKS

(working groups for school planning). Of the 26, eight had completed an RKS

and were able to show this in hardcopy. Six already had a district-approved

plan (RPS) prior to the intervention, and three had softcopies of part-

completed RKS. The remaining nine schools could not show the team an RKS,

either in softcopy or hardcopy form. Various reasons were given: the plan was

not provided by the KKN students, the school principal left it at home, or it

was at the school but stored in a locked cabinet.

Three of the schools had a complete SDS, including the BOS format K1-K6

and LMS. A further six schools had almost completed their SDS. The

remaining 17 schools had no SDS and gave a variety of reasons for this,

including: it was taken by the students and the school was not given a

softcopy, the school does not have a computer, an error / virus, and it was

taken by the staff member who manages SDS. A small number of schools

established a new school committee, facilitated by the KKN students.

Most significantly, the schools generally indicated that they were not

empowered by the students. In preparing the RKS and SDS, the school

typically served only as a provider of data. The process of preparation of the

RKS and SDS was completed solely by the students.

3 DBE1, January 2010, Hasil MonEv Sekolah Dampingan UPI di Kota Cimahi dan Kabupaten

Bandung Barat (Internal Report)


The Service Provider perspective

A meeting was held between DBE1 and UPI on February 16, 2011, to discuss

the service provider program. The Chairman of UPI’s research body, LPPM,

gave a report on the program. Also in attendance were the Secretary of LPPM

and five service provider personnel. The objective was for UPI to report to

DBE1 on the activities carried out since 2009, and to discuss program

constraints and expectations for the future. The meeting confirmed the

commitment of UPI and interest in continuing the program in 2011. UPI

expressed the hope that further training will be given to strengthen their

capacity as a service provider.

Constraints to the success of this program from the perspective of UPI were as

follows:

1. There were too few UPI trainers to train students and lecturers before

they plunged directly into the school KKN program.

2. Due to budget limitations, UPI was unable to provide KKN students

with hardcopies of the modules. Only softcopies were provided.

3. The school-based management themed KKN program requires more

time for the supervisor to monitor the school. While for most programs

three monitoring visits are sufficient, for the school-based management

program, six visits are required. This has an impact on financing the

implementation of the KKN program.

4. Given that the aim is to build the capacity of school stakeholders, the

time allowed for KKN was too short, and so the results were not

optimal; the capacity building process can take a rather long time and

requires high intensity support.

These preliminary findings are supported by the findings of the structured

evaluation workshop held subsequently in UPI on March 1st, 2010. Six

participants of the 2009 program attended along with the Head of UPI’s

research body and six participants from the 2010 student community service

program, described above.

All respondents indicated that they would like to join another program if the

opportunity were given. They felt that the program was well aligned to their

professional and institutional objectives:

‘The program was conceptually aligned with the theory developed by

UPI, the objective is good, and the process, in terms of material

preparation, was good.’

In particular the program helps academic staff to achieve the three mandated

objectives of universities: teaching, research and community support.

However, in terms of implementation, it was felt that the program was not yet

optimal due to: (1) limited time, (2) limited funds, (3) limited human

resources, (4) the varied response of the market (expectations were sometimes


too high), and (5) an inadequate system for organization and coordination of

district personnel, education offices, schools (teachers and principals) the

district, the superintendent, and school committee.

The participants were appreciative of the new knowledge they had acquired

from DBE1. However, in order for them to become a more effective 'service

provider’, further training is required and the process of school mentoring

needs to be more intensive. According to the director of its research body, the

university is also considering conducting a stakeholder impact evaluation in

the schools which received assistance from KKN students.

The participants felt that there is a clearly defined market for UPI as a service

provider in this field. Furthermore it was felt that this market could be better

tapped through establishing MOUs with district governments. Opportunities to

socialize and present to stakeholders could be more numerous and intensive. It

was suggested that a ‘road show’ to district heads and senior officials would

be a good strategy to promote UPI as a service provider. It was also suggested

that a good strategy would be to repackage and publish the existing DBE1

school-based management modules in book form in partnership with UPI and

the Department of Education (national and provincial).

Conclusions

The results of this program were mixed. On the negative side of the equation,

the students failed to empower or provide enough knowledge and information

about the DBE1 program to schools. They saw their task as the preparation of

RKS and SDS, rather than to help and teach the schools how to develop an

RKS and use the SDS program. This is perhaps not surprising. The students

were relatively junior and generally lacked both the status and experience

required to support the implementation of school-based management

methodologies in schools. Moreover the program was extensive and adopted a

‘cascade’ approach resulting in limited supervision of the students in the field

and a limited understanding of the methodologies among the students.

Academic staff members were selected for inclusion in the program by senior

UPI staff and were not all well suited to the role, generally lacking any

theoretical or practical experience in educational management. In part as a

result of this experience, DBE1 participated in a joint selection process with

clearly defined selection criteria for participants in the district level program

which followed and is described below.

On the positive side, the program succeeded in engaging UPI as a service

provider for DBE1 programs and, significantly, in engaging senior officials

from both district and provincial education offices. Further, the program

provided training in DBE1 school-based management programs to a cohort of

24 UPI academic staff, who in turn provided training to some 1,000 students.

Finally, 100 principals received training in school leadership and the

placement of the 1,000 students in 100 schools as part of the annual KKN

program resulted in the introduction of key school-based methodologies,


particularly RKS and in some cases SDS and strengthened school committees

to these schools.

It should also be noted that the ‘Thematic KKN program’ implemented by UPI

covering RKS, SDS, Leadership, and School Committee training has

continued each year since the 2009 pilot. In the first year there were 1,000

students in the program, 24 lecturers, and 100 primary schools in the city of

Cimahi and West Bandung. In 2010, 1,000 students, and 28 faculty coaches

took part in 100 primary schools in the same two districts.

In the 2011 plan, KKN will be held in July with a target of 1,500 students, 50

lecturers, and 150 primary schools spread over Cimahi, West Bandung,

Subang, and the City of Bandung. However, the RKS and SDS components of

the school-based management package are currently under review as part of

MONE’s national program. UPI does not wish to create confusion. It was

therefore decided that if by July there is no clarification or further information

regarding this matter, UPI only will focus on leadership and school

committees in this year’s program.

DBE1 has now also trained a number of elementary school supervisors in

Cimahi in leadership and school committee strengthening. Several school

committees have also been trained. It was suggested that these can become

partners for UPI in implementing the KKN program and DBE1 has advised

UPI of the 21 schools that already receive leadership and school committee

training, the supervisors’ names, and the names of participants who were

trained.

The Sampoerna Foundation school-level program

The program

Responding to a request made to USAID, in 2010 DBE1 implemented a

program to develop the capacity of the Sampoerna Foundation’s School of

Education (SSE) and Outreach and School Development Program (then called

the Teacher Institute). The training aimed to enable Sampoerna Foundation

trainers to make use of DBE1 materials in their in-service school development

program and also possibly in pre-service teacher training. DBE1 provided

training on the overall DBE1 approach, leadership training, BOS reporting,

school committee strengthening, SDS and school development planning

(RKS). In all, 18 days of training were provided between February and May

2010 by DBE1 specialists and district facilitators. Most of this training was

given at the SSE campus in Jakarta.

DBE1 also made an agreement with the Sampoerna School of Education

(SSE) to jointly adapt DBE1 school based management materials to use in pre-

service teacher training. SSE had requested technical assistance in developing

a credit earning program within the school based on the existing DBE1

modules and materials. DBE1 agreed to support SSE by assigning a specialist


to work with the SSE Team to convert the DBE1 program into a credit earning

program to be integrated into the formal degree program of S1 and/or S2 level

at SSE. Work on mapping of DBE1 methodologies and SSE curriculum was

completed by September. It was anticipated that by the end of December, an

integrated curriculum framework would have been prepared. However this has

not eventuated due to changing priorities within SSE in 2010.


The Sampoerna Foundation has an impressive profile with a new teacher

training institute and a history of implementing corporate-social responsibility

programs for private companies in the basic education sector. While the

managers and field trainers from the Sampoerna Foundation have built strong

experience in the delivery of programs to improve teaching and learning and,

to some extent, to help implement school-based management, it is clear that

they lack experience in linking these programs to government policy and

systems, especially given the current dynamic regulatory context. It is this

perspective which DBE1 has been able to bring to the Sampoerna Foundation,

potentially resulting in improvements and enhancing their approach.

The managers and trainers from the Sampoerna Foundation participated

actively and enthusiastically throughout the program. As a result, the trainers

have reportedly adopted and adapted many of the tools from DBE1 school-

based management package for use in the field. In particular, they have

incorporated aspects of RKS and Leadership materials into their training and

have recently used DBE1 school committee training modules in a program

funded by the Beyond Petroleum (BP) Corporation in Bintuni, Papua Barat.

DBE1 materials have reportedly been used in one way or another in at least 20

field activities since the training in 2010.


In August 2010 an evaluation workshop was conducted with DBE1 and

Sampoerna managers and staff to review the program and discuss next steps.

The response of participants and of the institution was enthusiastic. The

Foundation especially found that the training increased their understanding of

government regulations, which in turn enables them to explain and justify the

legal basis for school improvement programs, particularly school-based

management. All of the training material was found to be relevant.

As most of the training program had been class-based it was felt that more

hands-on field experience is needed to enable the Sampoerna trainers to be

fully confident with the DBE1 material. In August 2010 it was agreed that the

cooperation could be continued under an amended TOC, however this did not

eventuate due to changing priorities within the organization. Sampoerna in-

service trainers appeared to be enthusiastic about the possibility of being

certified as facilitators under the DBE1-MONE certification scheme and it was

agreed that they could join DBE1 dissemination activities as service providers


at the expense of their organization. Due to conflicting priorities, this did not

occur in 2010. The offer was repeated in 2011.

In order to determine the extent to which the Sampoerna Foundation had

adopted or adapted DBE1 materials and the level commitment to follow up in

2011, a second meeting was held in March 2011. The meeting was attended by

Dr Paulina Panen, Dean of SSE), along with five members of the academic

faculty and training team. This meeting provided an opportunity for DBE1 to

update Sampoerna Foundation on the project and on changes in the regulatory

and government policy context. Sampoerna requested copies of updated

materials for SDS and RKS.

The Sampoerna Foundation appears very keen to continue to work with DBE1

and further develop their capacity and curriculum. As in 2010 there are two

programs in which they hope to make use of DBE1 methods and materials: (1)

the Outreach and School Development program, and (2) the SSE graduate

studies program.

The Foundation undertook to provide a written report on field activities in

which DBE1 materials were adopted or adapted. In 2011 they hope to make

more use of DBE1 materials and will reportedly appreciate the opportunity to

join DBE1 in the field as either trainers or participants. Meanwhile, the SSE is

relocating to a new campus in Pancoran. In May SSE is holding a Celebration

Week. They requested a presentation from DBE1 on School-Based

Management, a Teachers Perspective.

The SSE’s Masters Degree program is known as Education Leadership and

Management (ELM) and is based on material from the Principal’s Academy at

Columbia University. SSE would like to incorporate more aspects of the

DBE1 material into this curriculum to increase the local relevance. They are

currently finalizing two packets for the post-graduate program: Finance and

Marketing. The program is delivered in two modes: on-campus and e-learning.

They welcome further support from DBE1.

The SSE is also currently applying to extend its license from MONE’s

Directorate for Higher Education (Dikti) for the graduate (S-1) program,

which expires October 2011 after the initial two years operation. For this they

need to complete a feasibility study and prepare an academic paper (naskah

akademik).

They have also adapted material from DBE2 for use in developing good

practice for teaching in higher education.

Conclusions

The aim of the program was to develop the capacity of Sampoerna as a service

provider in DBE1’s school-based management methodologies. The program

succeeded in introducing DBE1’s methodologies and in developing the

understanding of SSE trainers and managers of the policy and regulatory basis

of school-based management in Indonesia. As a result, aspects of the DBE1


approach to school-based management have been adapted and adopted into

Sampoerna’s in-service training program. However, further field work would

strengthen the capacity and confidence of Sampoerna trainers to deliver

training using DBE1 materials in the field.

The level of commitment and interest of Sampoerna Foundation in working

with DBE1 in 2011 is confirmed. For a very small investment of time, DBE1

could gain a good return in terms of dissemination by (1) taking a more

proactive role in involving the Sampoerna trainers in school-level

dissemination activities, and (2) providing some limited assistance to SSE to

help them develop their ELM curriculum.

The UPI district program, West Java

The program

In 2010 DBE1 worked with the Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) in

West Java to develop the capacity of the institution to provide a service in

consulting and training to improve the management and governance of

education at district level. DBE1 worked with six professional university staff,

three specializing in education finance related DBE1 programs (AKPK and

BOSP) and three specializing in education planning related programs (SIPPK

and Renstra). These participants were jointly selected in a merit-based process

conducted on campus in late 2009. The program was coordinated internally by

the university’s research body (LPPM).

An introductory training on DBE1 programs was conducted with the staff

from UPI and the other two institutions over five days in Bogor in February

2010. Following this the focus of the program moved from the national to the

provincial level. Some additional training was provided by DBE1 provincial

specialists before the team began giving technical assistance to district

planning and education finance teams in the district of Cimahi.

The service providers worked between March and September with DBE1

specialists and counterparts from local government to conduct financial

analysis (BOSP and AKPK) and strategic planning (SIPPK and renstra) in

Cimahi.

In July, with the support of UPI and DBE1 the Cimahi Education Office

Renstra Development Team started to develop the plan, specifically that part

relating to objectives, activities, and costs involved. As a result of this process,

team members gained a better understanding of effective budget allocations

required to support planned activities of the Education Office. In August the

Renstra Development Team estimated the Office’s yearly expenditures and

made necessary adjustments between the estimation and available budget.

Subsequently, the team reviewed results of work with DBE1 and the service

providers.


As the next step, the document was presented to other stakeholders in a public

consultation session in September. The event was chaired by the Head or the

Education Office and attended by more than 60 people including the

representatives from DPRD, Bappeda, the Assistant for the Development Unit,

Education Council, NGOs, media, school principals, and school committee

members. There are two key issues out of many worth mentioning. First, the

Chair of the district parliament’s education commission made a commitment

to increase the 2011 budget for teaching and learning from 0.8% (as indicated

in the AKPK for 2009) to 5%. Second, the Education Office agreed to provide

funds in APBD 2011 for disseminating DBE1’s school-based management

package. The latter point was discussed between DBE1’s COP and the Mayor

of Cimahi two days prior to the public consultation.


In West Java, as in other provinces, the service providers played a rather

limited role in the earlier stages of the renstra process which gradually

increased as the program progressed. Service providers played a much more

important role during the in-service support.

As to the AKPK and BOSP components, service providers were the key actors

in the facilitation process from the very beginning and consequently DBE1

provincial specialists only provided some technical back-up support.

Progress in implementing the different DBE1 programs at the district level

was very satisfactory.


Discussions between DBE1 and UPI on February 16th

confirmed that UPI

hopes to continue and further develop the collaboration with DBE1. This was

reconfirmed in March.

The coordinator of the UPI program, Professor Sumarto, Head of the

university’s research body, LPPM, also indicated that he hopes the

understanding of renstra methodology gained by the service provider

personnel can be shared with UPI’s own renstra team so that they can use the

same approach internally. Much of the DBE1 material can reportedly be used

as course material within UPI. The university is also considering conducting

research on the implementation of strategic planning in the city of Cimahi.

The following were identified by Professor Sumarto as constraints in the

district level service provider program:

1. The involvement of the service providers was hampered in Cimahi by

conflicting schedules which often made it impossible for them to

attend activities. It was difficult to align schedules of the district

education office and DBE1 with the availability of service providers.

2. The DBE1 specialists who worked with the service providers were

changed several times, causing problems with program continuity.

Each specialist approached the task slightly differently and with a


different style making it difficult for the service providers and even for

the Education Office team itself, to follow the process well.

3. The role of service providers in mentoring activities with the Cimahi

Education Office was insufficient. The activities were still dominated

by DBE1 specialists. This is because the service providers were given

only two days training at the province, after which they immediately

dived into the program.

The evaluation workshop conducted on March 1st confirmed these findings

and added more. Members of the team indicated that they were motivated to

join the program by an interest in increasing their knowledge of education

finance, management and governance, and in gaining a practical experience of

working in teams and in implementation in the field.

In general, participants felt that the program met their expectations, although

there were some unexpected obstacles. Among others, it turned out that the

education bureaucracy in the district was more complex than expected, the

need for more understanding of teamwork was evident, and time management

was a problem. In order to become a more effective service provider,

participants felt that they needed more time to share experience and opinions

with DBE1 specialists, more field experience (‘jam terbang’) more focused

workshops and the opportunity to learn by using the products of previous

DBE1 activity such as completed BOSP, AKPK and renstra from other

districts.

It was agreed that the DBE1 Service Provider program is in line with the

mission of the organization. The market for UPI services is clearly defined,

consisting of schools, government and community organizations, higher

education institutions, and especially district governments. In order to increase

the potential of UPI to access this market, it was felt that UPI should develop

strategic partnerships with education stakeholders, particularly NGOs and

provincial and district governments along with more effective networking in

the field and marketing to stakeholders. Other recommendations include:

publication of promotional material, an intensive road-show to meet with

district heads and senior officials, and conducting follow-up research in target

districts to better determine the needs of the ‘market’.

Conclusions

The program succeeded in achieving its initial objectives of developing the

capacity of UPI as service provider for DBE1’s district level programs.

However further training and field experience is required before UPI can be

fully confident to act as an independent service provider. The commitment of

the institution to working with DBE1 to develop that capacity is clear.

The individuals within the team are generally strong, especially in the finance

area. However the program was hampered somewhat by frequent changes in

DBE1 personnel, problems with scheduling, and a need for more on-the-job

training of UPI personnel by DBE1, prior to, during, and after field activities.


In order to achieve good results in a follow-up program in 2011, it will be

helpful to jointly select additional personnel to join the team and to prepare

DBE1 specialists to take on a more proactive mentoring role with the service

provider personnel. DBE1 could also support UPI in publishing materials

under UPI’s banner (with due acknowledgement to USAID, DBE1, MONE

and MORA) and possibly conducting a joint ‘road show’ to promote UPI as a

service provider within districts.

The UMS district program, Central Java

The program

In Central Java, DBE1 worked with the Universitas Muhammadiyah

Surakarta (UMS) in the City of Solo (Surakarta). Four senior academic staff

were jointly selected for participation in the program; two to focus on finance

(BOSP and AKPK) and two on data and strategic planning (SIPPK and

Renstra). The program was coordinated within the university by the post-

graduate studies department.

Following the national training in Bogor described above, preparatory training

was conducted one week before the work commenced at the district level. The

two-day training covered the district training strategy, steps in the training

process and training content. Following this training, the personnel worked

with DBE1 specialists to facilitate the financial analysis and planning

activities.

In Central Java, it was intended that the national NGO, PATTIRO, also be

included in the program. However, this proved to be impossible as the district

government refused to work with PATTIRO as a result of the organization’s

previous work as a critic of government and the exposure of a corruption case.

After some deliberation and consultations with PATTIRO it was decided that

they would withdraw from the program at this point.

Working with the service provider, DBE1 completed BOSP, SIPPK and

renstra development for the Education Office in Surakarta. The AKPK

component was not completed, in part due to limited availability of qualified

DBE specialists to assist the process in this period.

Results of these activities were presented to stakeholders. As an outcome of

internal consultation held in July, BOSP team members revised unit cost

calculations for each level. A public consultation event was conducted in July

in the District Secretary’s Office and results of the public consultation session

were presented to Mayor of Surakarta and Head of the Regional Development

and Planning Body (Bappeda) two weeks later. It is hoped that the Mayor of

Surakarta will issue a decree to support the use of BOSP results and that

implementation will start in 2011 and be used by schools as basis to develop

their budgets.


A public consultation session was also held to discuss the Surakarta Education

Office Renstra in July. The Head of the Surakarta Development and Planning

Body (Bappeda) advised that the District Education Office’s document should

be finalized in conjunction with Municipality’s development plan. As the

Mayor of Surakarta was newly installed in early August, it will be some

months before the city’s new vision and mission as well as Mid-Term

Development Plan (RPJMD) is finalized. In order to ensure that the Education

Office’s Renstra is based on the district’s new plan, it should be finalized then.

The renstra process proved to be so successful in Surakarta that the

methodology was subsequently picked up by the District Health Office and the

District’s Regional Planning and Development Body (Bappeda). DBE1

provided some assistance to these agencies to prepare a renstra.


In Central Java, DBE1 provincial specialists played a dominant role in

conducting data analysis (SIPPK) as the service providers lacked the necessary

computer skills. Once the data analysis stage was completed, service providers

and DBE1 provincial specialists shared the task of providing technical support

to the district planning team on an equal basis.

In summary, the service providers’ capacity is adequate to provide BOSP and

education planning support, but major work remains to be done to develop

their computer skills. The UMS service provider personnel are all quite senior

academic staff. While this seniority is an asset when it comes to consulting

with officials in districts, it can be a problem in that senior staff tend to have

greater time commitments making it difficult to fully participate in the field

work. Furthermore, the computer skills required for the field work are more

likely to be found amongst more junior academic staff.

The service provider perspective

In his remarks at the workshop on March 8th

, the program coordinator, Head

of the Post-Graduate program for UMS, expressed strong support for the

service provider program. In addition to developing the capacity of UMS as a

service provider, the program has resulted in DBE1 material being integrated

into postgraduate (S2) programs within the university. Professor Harsono

indicated that the DBE1 program could be further disseminated through the

Muhammadiyah network of schools and teacher training institutions. Professor

Sutama, secretary of UMS post-graduate program, reiterated this support and

added that further work on LAKIP and management systems would be

appreciated.

The service provider personnel reported that they were motivated to join the

program by an interest in expanding their knowledge of the ‘education world’,

both practical and theoretical. All are senior academics, teaching post-graduate

programs. As one participant commented:


‘Since I am responsible for the education finance program, it is

important to have practical experience from field to complement the

theory given to students.’

SIPPK can strengthen the policy analysis component of the strategic

management post-graduate program, while in the context of teaching statistics

SIPPK provides good material for statistical analysis. BOSP is helpful for

preparation of RKAS taught in education finance courses.

In general, the participants indicated that the program met their expectations.

However, not entirely, because what was given at the training in Bogor was

not fully followed up. Further training is required after the TOT to strengthen

understandings so that individuals are better prepared when plunging into the

field (particularly for BOSP). Meanwhile the renstra team reported that they

received extra training as preparation the day before ‘jumping in’ so there was

some reinforcement for individuals first. The hope is that much more

information can be provided. As well as further training and field experience

to deepen their understanding of education finance and planning, the

participants indicated that they would like to learn about other programs

including Asset Management and Human Resource Management.

In order to further increase their capacity as service providers, the team felt

that they need advanced training in strategic planning including the

implementation of renstra in the field. Is it used and to what extent are the

objectives achieved, for example, in Renja and LAKIP and district policy?

Also, what are the outcomes of BOSP in the field; is there an impact on the

policy of the Bupati / Mayor? All indicated that they feel the need for more

‘flying hours’ as well as exposure to other material.

The team felt that the DBE1 program meets institutional needs for UMS by

providing opportunities for faculty to take a wider role in education. There is

relevance to the development of post-graduate subjects. The DBE1 program

has provided additional material and insights. This is relevant for courses in

educational policy development. For example, what should the quality of

teachers be, in order that graduates are aligned with user expectations?

Moreover, the program aligns with the vision and mission of UMS. It supports

the participation of both the institution and academic staff in the development

of education.

In particular, becoming a service provider supports the mission of UMS to

provide community service (pengabdian masyarakat). This is included in the

official three duties (Tri Dharma) of higher education in Indonesia: teaching,

research and community service. In this context, DBE1 material can also be

followed up with research as well as enrich teaching programs. It was reported

that BOSP and renstra materials have already been used as course material.

Data generated through the program has also been provided as material for

research by students and lecturers, although it has not yet been analyzed. The

service provider program also supports the more general mission of


Muhammadiyah to create a community of excellence through solid planning

(‘…menciptakan masyarakat utama melalui perencanaan yang mantap’).

It was felt that there is a strong market for UMS as a ‘service provider’.

Particularly within the Muhammadiyah education community: elementary,

middle, and high schools, and Muhammadiyah tertiary institutions. There are

164 such institutions in Indonesia; in Java five large universities. Beyond this,

district governments are a prime market along with other government and

private education networks.

In order to better meet the needs of this market, it was felt that UMS needs to

improve the quality of individual personnel, by providing education, training,

and increased practical field experience. Does the service provider function

need to be institutionalized in a special section within UMS? It was felt that it

could be proposed as a center of study of Management Education (School

Management) in the post-graduate department. To support this, it was hoped

that DBE1 can provide guidelines / manuals / software to UMS, including

those which were given during the closing program and those that can be

accessed through www.dbe-usaid.org, providing additional training in other

materials and to other faculty, and increasing practical time in the field.

The following recommendations were made to improve the program in the

future: (1) add more time for field experience, (2) Provide increased

opportunities for preparation / briefing / reflection before plunging into the

field, and (3) try to improve coordination of schedules between DBE1,

academic staff, and district government. If there is a clash with scheduled

teaching hours, classes can be arranged for another time. However, it is

difficult to manage clashes if staff have other assignments outside the city.

Conclusions

The program achieved its aim of developing the capacity of UMS as a service

provider for DBE1’s district level programs. However, as with the other

service provider institutions, further training and field experience is required

before UMS can be fully confident to act as an independent service provider.

The commitment of the institution to working with DBE1 to develop that

capacity is clear. UMS is well placed to act as a service provider not only for

districts in Central Java (and beyond) but also within the Muhammadiyah

network of schools and tertiary institutions. Further work could also

consolidate the use of DBE1 materials within post-graduate courses in UMS

and use of DBE1 experience and materials as a basis for research to support

broader policy development.

Compared with those in the other institutions, the personnel participating in

the program from UMS are relatively senior. Partly as a result of this,

scheduling problems were frequent and problems were evident in the use of

computer software. It would be helpful if additional team members were

selected to fill this gap.


The UNM district program, South Sulawesi

The program

In South Sulawesi, DBE1 worked with the Universitas Negeri Makassar

(UNM). In late 2009, four professional university staff were jointly selected,

two to specialize in education finance related DBE1 programs (AKPK and

BOSP) and two to specialize in education planning related programs (SIPPK

and Renstra). The program was coordinated internally by the university’s

research body (LemLit). However, Professor Nurdin, the Director of the

division responsible for external partnerships (Pembantu Rektor IV, Kepala

Bidang Kerjasama), who oversees the service provider program, recommends

that further work be situated under the newly formed School Effectiveness

Unit.

In February 2010, the four staff joined the introductory training in Bogor.

Following this, additional training was provided by DBE1 provincial

specialists before the team began giving technical assistance to planning and

education finance teams in the district of Barru. This preparatory training was

organized at the DBE1 provincial office. Between March and August the team

worked with DBE1 specialists and counterparts from local government to

conduct financial analysis (BOSP and AKPK) and strategic planning (SIPPK

and renstra) in Barru.

The analysis and reports for both AKPK and BOSP in Barru District were

finalized in July. In August results of these calculations were presented with

the new Barru Education Office Renstra to members of district Parliament and

Education Council in two separate sessions. During the morning session with

the District Parliament, the Head of the Parliament raised three main

education-related issues currently faced by District stakeholders: (1) school

infrastructure not aligned to schools’ needs and conditions (i.e. some schools

have more class rooms than needed while others do not have enough rooms),

(2) the high cost of education, and (3) low education quality. The meeting was

also attended by members of the Parliamentary Education Committee. A

similar session was held for Head and other members of Barru Education

Council (Dewan Pendidikan) in the afternoon of the same day.

Representatives of schools, media, and NGOs also attended.

During the final quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, DBE1 continued

to support capacity development of service provider personnel by involving

them in different programs such as the SIPPK and Renstra development

process in Soppeng. DBE1 also hopes to provide further opportunities in 2011

for the service providers to take part in SIPPK and renstra development in

Pangkep district and BOSP in Makassar City.

UNM is also reportedly about to commence a program to disseminate BOSP

in East Kalimantan, independently of DBE1.



In South Sulawesi, the service providers took the lead in facilitating BOSP and

AKPK components with DBE1 provincial specialists only providing technical

back-stopping at the district level. The service providers facilitated the last

stages of the BOSP preparation process by themselves as well as in-service

support for AKPK preparation. They also prepared the presentation materials

for the internal consultation completely independently.

As in other provinces, during the initial stages of the renstra preparation

process, service providers played only a minor role in district facilitation.

However, during the process their role gradually increased and they played a

central role in the last two workshops in the planning process. The program for

Barru was completed in the third quarter of 2010.

The commitment of individuals within the team is clearly evident in the

participation in additional work with Soppeng District. However, because they

were already busy with their own job responsibilities, the UNM personnel

were not always able to take part fully in the programs. A possible solution to

this problem that has been suggested is to choose those who are still junior

lecturers in their university and have ample time to join programs such as

DBE1’s.

The service provider perspective

At the evaluation workshop held in Makassar on March 4th

, strong support was

indicated for the service provider program and further cooperation with DBE1.

Professor Nurdin, Pembantu Rektor IV, attended for the full day along with

Professor Asfah (former DBE1 Coordinator and Head of the university’s

research body, Lemlit).

As in the other service provider institutions, the program was found to

strongly align to the vision and mission of UNM, supporting the institution to

achieve its objectives in enriching programs of study with practical

methodologies and field experience, providing a basis for relevant research

and supporting community service programs including, potentially, the annual

student KKN program. Reportedly DBE1 approaches have already been

informally incorporated into teaching programs and some research has already

been conducted using DBE1-based data. In addition, UNM academic staff

who are former DBE1 personnel are currently implementing a case study

research program to implement school-based management approaches in ten

disadvantaged urban schools in Makassar.

Service provider personnel indicated that they were motivated to participate in

the program as it aligns with the vision and mission of the institution (UNM),

especially community service. In their view, the experience strengthened their

knowledge and capacity as education professionals and strengthens the

subjects taught through practical experience from the field. The program

reportedly met their expectations in a very positive way. Individuals’ interest

in gaining practical knowledge was answered in the field, they gained new


understandings on planning and budgeting, and the need for synergy from the

center to the regions. Also mentioned was the need to accommodate local

knowledge through consultation, and accurate data on education funding needs

and education budget policy in planning.

Some important new understandings gained by participants in the program

were identified as follows: (1) planning should be supported by data so that it

is valid; (2) the concept of making as much effort as possible to ensure that the

plan is implemented, (3) the idea that the Education Office should

accommodate the needs of schools in planning, (4) expanding horizons in the

field of education through an understanding of education policy, and (5)

understanding the amount required in relation to education budget allocation.

The following four points were identified as necessary for participants to

become more effective as service providers:

1. Printed technical instruction manuals; books, rather than softcopy or

photocopies. (It was understood that development of the manuals was

ongoing during the implementation period, making this difficult in

2010.)

2. More intensive coordination: information could be more open, the

program objectives needs to be better understood from the beginning.

There was limited time to meet with service providers. It would be

helpful to have discussions prior to the implementation of activities in

the field.

3. More time for participation in the field. Limited financial resources

may have reduced the involvement of service providers and as a result,

the DBE1 specialists were still dominant in the field activity.

4. Involvement of all personnel in all programs, although specialization

remains.

It was felt by participants that the market for UNM as a service provider in

this field is diverse, including not only Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota but

private sector businesses, public and private enterprises as sponsors through

CSR programs and private teaching institutions.

In order to meet the needs of this market, it was felt that more personnel

should be trained as service providers and current personnel should be given

more training. Study programs for both graduate and post-graduate courses

need to be strengthened, especially in the area of programs for educational

administration/management and preparatory programs for school principals. It

would also be helpful to ‘repackage’ DBE1 materials and training in line with

the needs of the market. Promotional material, such as leaflets, brochures and

a website will assist. In order to achieve the above, assistance from DBE1 was

requested.

In order to improve the program in the future, it was felt that UNM should

establish a body to formalize the service provider program, and qualified


personnel need a certificate from DBE1 and a letter of authority (SK) from

UNM. More coordination is required prior to implementing activities along

with reflection on the results of each activity. Expanded MOUs are needed

between UNM and districts.

Conclusions

The program achieved the objective of developing the capacity of UNM as

service provider for DBE1’s district level programs. As with the other service

provider institutions, further training and field experience is required in order

for UNM to become fully confident to act as an independent service provider.

In particular it will be helpful to provide more training during the course of the

program.

UNM’s commitment to working with DBE1 to develop that capacity is

confirmed. Among other things, the evaluation found that the service provider

personnel were often busy with their own job responsibilities and as a result

were not always able to take part in DBE1 programs. A possible solution to

this problem is to choose those who are still junior lecturers in their university

and have ample time to join the programs.

The idea of ‘repackaging’ DBE1 materials and publishing under an UNM

banner echoed similar suggestions made in Bandung and Solo.

Lessons Learned

The purposes of this evaluation report are:

1. to assess the effectiveness of the service provider program,

2. to assess the interest and commitment of each service provider

organization in further developing the program in 2011, and

3. to identify lessons learnt in order to improve future programs.

On the whole, the service provider has effectively achieved its objectives

which were, in summary, to reach agreements with institutions of higher

education, to train and certify a cadre of professionals to provide services, and

to link these service providers to potential clients such as districts or private

school networks. Further work is now required to strengthen the capacity of

the institutions and to link the service providers to potential clients.

The commitment of each of the three universities and of the Sampoerna

Foundation to expand and further develop the program in 2011 is confirmed.

The service provider program meets the needs of individuals and of the four

institutions and is well aligned to their missions, supporting the achievement

of institutional goals in relation to community service, as well as enriching

teaching and research programs.


Some important lessons have been learned from this program. These are

described below.

School level programs

The outcomes of the school level program in UPI were somewhat less

satisfactory than for the district level program and for the Sampoerna

Foundation program.

1. The UPI KKN program was successful in introducing school-based

management programs to a number of schools and districts and has

been continued by UPI, independent of DBE1. However, the program

failed to effectively empower the schools. This failure is a result of

relatively junior students being entrusted to deliver the program in

schools with inadequate training or understanding of their role. While

there is value in the KKN approach, it is questionable whether this is

an appropriate mechanism for disseminating DBE1 methodologies in

schools.

2. In contrast, the Sampoerna Foundation facilitators trained in DBE1

school-based management methodologies are all experienced trainers,

well accustomed to empowering schools through their programs. The

training was intensive, enabling the participants to gain a relatively

comprehensive understanding of the material. DBE1 materials and

approaches have now been adapted and adopted in the field to

strengthen the Foundations in-service program. While the initial

training program did not provide sufficient opportunity for participants

to gain practical experience in the field, it is clear that they have

already incorporated aspects of DBE1 material into their approach and

have delivered programs as an independent service provider.

The commitment of both UPI and the Sampoerna Foundation to support

the continuation of the program in 2011 is clear. However, while it seems

that while Sampoerna Foundation trainers are exactly the right people to

deliver DBE1 programs in schools, in the case of the UPI KKN students

the opposite is true.

District level programs

Outcomes of the district program were much more positive. The progress

in implementing DBE1’s district level finance and planning methodologies

in these three districts was faster and more efficient than in the original

DBE partner districts because the DBE1 staff were more experienced and

DBE1 purposely districts that were already highly committed to undertake

these activities as the venue for on-the-job training for the service

providers. Moreover, results were very encouraging in terms of potential

policy impact as described. These facts indicate: (1) a high level of

commitment from the three districts, (2) a maturity in the methodology as

a result of refinement over the last three years, and (3) a high-level of

competency amongst the team of specialists working with the service


providers.

In all three service provider institutions the commitment to continue the

program is very evident. However, there are a number of areas of the

program that need strengthening and improvement during the remainder of

the project. The following are important lessons have been learned that

will improve the program.

1. As described, it proved difficult in all provinces to harmonize the

agendas of the three parties involved in service provider capacity

development because of the work load at each of the three home

organizations: the university, District Education Office, and DBE1,

which had at the time competing commitments to other districts. This,

at times, resulted in a situation whereby the work at the district level

had to be implemented without active involvement of some or all

assigned service provider personnel.

2. The role of PATTIRO, an NGO included in the original service

provider training, proved problematic in Surakarta City, where

specialists from PATTIRO were to provide training to government

officials. It appears that as a result of PATTIRO’s previous activity as

a ‘watchdog’ on government, the district was unwilling to work with

the group as a service provider. In order to continue the program it was

necessary to withdraw the PATTIRO personnel. This may be regarded

as a lesson learnt for the future.

3. In all three locations, the service provider personnel require further

training and field experience in order to become fully confident as

independent service providers in the delivery of these programs.

4. Although the experience varies between provinces, it is clear that the

training delivered at province and district level should be more

structured and better planned on the part of the DBE1 specialist team.

While in some cases participants received good briefings before going

into the field, this was not always the case and it seems that, with some

exceptions, the service provider personnel felt that they were ‘left

behind’ in the delivery of the program, with DBE1 personnel taking

the lead and not always effectively mentoring the service provider

personnel as they proceeded with the program. Some TOT training for

DBE1 personnel together with allocation of time and resources for pre-

and post- activity briefings would address this problem.

5. In all three institutions there is an interest in and a need for expanding

the number of personnel involved. In each case the makeup of the team

is slightly different. Each has strengths and weaknesses described

above. Joint selection of new team members should take account of

these conditions. For example, in Surakarta it will be helpful to recruit

a couple of younger academic staff with computer skills to

complement the team.


6. In all three institutions there is an interest in (1) integrating DBE1

materials into course material and (2) using the DBE1 experience and

data as a basis for research which could subsequently inform policy.

This interest has resulted in some informal use of materials and some

initial research or research planning in all cases.

7. Despite the above constraints the service providers have become

skilled in delivering DBE1 education programs, although additional

capacity development work remains to be done.

The enthusiasm of the institutions and individuals participating in the program

is high, linked to an awareness of the demand for service provision. This was

confirmed in each case by senior academic staff from the university.

For example, in South Sulawesi where the service provider representatives

have discussed the potential to use their new skills and understandings in

assisting districts to develop renstra after the election of new district heads

later in the year. UNM personnel in this province have already assisted in the

SIPPK updating and renstra process in Soppeng since the completion of the

program in Barru. UNM also has plans to disseminate BOSP in East

Kalimantan. Similar experiences are echoed in the other locations.

Recommendations

On the basis of this evaluation, it is recommended that further training for

school level programs with UPI not be provided in 2011.

Sampoerna Foundation trainers should be encouraged to participate (at the

expense of SF) in dissemination programs in order to gain the field experience

they need to consolidate their class-based learning. For this to eventuate,

DBE1’s Jakarta-based coordinator will be assigned to coordinate and ensure

information is passed to the Sampoerna Foundation in a timely manner. In

addition, consideration can be given to assigning a DBE1 specialist to provide

limited assistance to the Sampoerna School of Education (SSE) to help them

develop an integrated curriculum for the Masters level Education Leadership

and Management (ELM) program.

The district level programs should be further developed at the three current

universities: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) in West Java,

Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta (UMS) in Central Java and Universitas

Negeri Makassar in South Sulawesi. The service provider program can be

expanded in these institutions by jointly selecting additional personnel from

within each partner university to work with DBE1 personnel on programs to

disseminate district level interventions in new districts.

Given the success of the current program it is likely that the field of candidates

from within each institution may be somewhat larger enabling the inclusion of

specialists from each university who can fill the skill gaps evident in the first

round. In particular it will be helpful to recruit some specialists with computer


expertise to complement technical backgrounds and planning or finance

experience. Each service provider team should ideally include some senior

academic staff who have the status to effectively consult at a high level along

with some more junior personnel who have greater flexibility of time and

more familiarity with the computer software required.

In addition the service provider program can be expanded to include at least

two additional institutions, including LPMP centers to disseminate the

personnel management program. (This is in line with the Scope of Services for

a DBE1 extension until December 2011.)

Additional recommendations, which apply to both current and new service

provider programs are as follows:

1. A strategy to certify individuals as qualified to provide training and

consulting services in specified DBE1 programs should be jointly

developed and implemented. Crtiera for certification should be developed

in collaboration of users of the service provider program including district

government staff who have been involved in the program.

2. Consideration should be given to enabling universities to repackage and

publish DBE1 manuals and materials under their own banners (giving due

acknowledgement to USAID, DBE1, MONE and MORA).

3. Consideration should also be given to supporting the service provider

organizations to conduct a road show to districts within their provinces to

promote their service. DBE1 could assist be providing promotional

material.

4. Key specialists within the DBE1 team in each province should be

identified as responsible for each service provider program (Finance,

Planning etc). Effort should be made to avoid changing staff during

implementation periods. These specialists should be given some direction

(or TOT) in how to maximize their role as a mentor for service providers,

including (1) improving communication and coordination of schedules, (2)

providing structured training and providing feedback in the field (prior to,

during, and following field work.

5. More field time should be provided to service provider personnel from the

first round to consolidate their learning. For experienced personnel this

may include inclusion in programs outside their province. As much field

time as possible should be provided to new personnel.

6. Partner universities should be encouraged to incorporate DBE1 materials

into course materials and to use the DBE1 experience as a basis for

research. DBE1 has received informal approaches from a number of

institutions with a possible interest in adapting and incorporating the

materials and methodologies into pre-service teacher training programs

within courses such as school leadership and educational administration.

Discussions should be held with universities including the current three


partners along with, possibly, UNM in Malang and Unila in Lampung with

a view to co-developing and trialing curriculum modules.


Appendix 1: Survey Instrument – Service Provider Evaluation, March 2011

Service Provider Evaluation Survey Individual

Jawablah pertanyaan-pertanyan di bawah ini dengan jujur dan terbuka Informasi Individu Peran/Spesialisasi:

Supervisor

BOSP AKPK SIPPK (DPISS)

Renstra RKS SDS

Leadership Komite Sekolah

Jumlah hari yang dihabiskan di lapangan bersama dengan DBE1 di tahun 2010 (untuk SP tingkat kab/kota)

Jumlah hari yang dihabiskan di lapangan melalui KKN (untuk SP tingkat sekolah)

Pengalaman Individu (for Field Specialists)

1. Mengapa Anda memutuskan untuk bergabung dengan Program Service Provider

DBE1?

(Why did you decide to join the DBE1 Service Provider program in 2010?)

Tujuan dari survey ini adalah: 1. Mengidentifikasi sejauh mana program Service Prvider yang dilakukan oleh

DBE1 memenuhi kebutuhan Anda dan organisasi Anda

2. Mengidentifikasi bagaimana program dapat ditingkatkan


2. Apakah program ini memenuhi harapan Anda? Apakah Anda mendapatkan apa yang

Anda harapkan?

(Did the program meet your expectations? Did you get what you were hoping?)

3. Apa yang Anda pelajari? (What did you learn?)

4. Apa yang Anda perlukan untuk belajar lebih banyak untuk menjadi service provider

yang efektif?

(What do you need to learn more of in order to be an effective ‘service provider’?)

Pengalaman Organisasi (for all)

1. Apakah program ini memenuhi kebutuhan organisasi Anda?

(Did this program meet the needs of your organization/university?)

2. Apakah gagasan untuk menjadi service provider sejalan dengan visi dan misi

organisasi Anda?

(Is the idea of being a ‘service provider’ in line with the vision and mission of your

organization?)

3. Apakah Anda pikir ada pasar untuk layanan ini? Siapa? DImana?

(Do you think there is a market for this service? Who? Where?)


4. Bagaimana organisasi Anda dapat lebih baik memenuhi permintaan/kebutuhan

pasar?

(How could your organization better meet the demand/needs of that market?)

5. Bagaimana DBE1 dapat membantu Anda untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut?

(How could DBE1 help you to achieve these objectives?)

6. Apakah program DBE1 memberikan Anda konten yang dapat membantu Anda

dalam pekerjaan inti? (Has the DBE1 program provided you with content that can

assist you in your core work?)

a. Pelatihan guru (Training Student Teachers)

b. Program Pasca Sarjana (Post Graduate Programs)

c. Melakukan penelitian (conducting research)

d. Lainnya…? (other ..?)

Improving the program (for all)

1. Apakah Anda tertarik untuk bergabung dengan program Service Provider di

tahun 2011 (jika ada)?

(Are you interested in joining another Service Provider program in 2011?)

2. Bagaimana program tersebut ditingkatkan?

(How could the program be improved?)

Terima Kasih atas Partisipasi Anda dalam Survey ini


Appendix 2: Report on evaluation of Service Provider Program, UPI, December 2009

HASIL MONEV SEKOLAH DAMPINGAN UPI DI KOTA CIMAHI DAN

KABUPATEN BANDUNG BARAT

A. PENDAHULUAN

Pada tanggal 7-11 Desember 2009 Tim DBE1 mengunjungi 26 sekolah (26%) dari

100 sekolah yang telah mendapatkan dampingan UPI untuk mendiseminasikan

program DBE1. Tujuan dari monitoring ini adalah untuk melihat sampai

sejauhmanakah keberhasilan program DBE1 di tingkat sekolah yang dilakukan oleh

UPI. Monitoring dilakukan dengan melakukan wawancara dengan kepala sekolah dan

guru serta dokumen review seperti dokumen RKS ataupun SDS. Nama-nama sekolah

yang dimonitor dapat dilihat pada matrix di bawah.

B. TEMUAN

Beberapa temuan yang dapat kami laporkan adalah sebagai berikut:

1. Tidak semua kepala sekolah mengikuti workshop/sosialisasi Program DBE1 yang

dilakukan di kampus UPI. Dari 26 sekolah yang kami intervie, terdapat 10 kepala

sekolah tidak mengikuti dengan berbagai alasan misalnya waktunya bersamaan

dengan kegiatan yang telah diprogramkan sebelumnya, tidak ada undangan, dan

ada 1 kepala sekolah yang hadir tetapi masuk ke ruangan lain.

2. Dari 26 sekolah tersebut, tingkat penyelesaian RKS maupun SDS berbeda-beda;

A. Rencana kerja Sekolah (RKS

a) Sebanyak 8 sekolah telah selesai menyusun RKS dan telah dicetak, termasuk

di dalamnya adalah RKAS 2009/10;

b) Sebanyak 6 sekolah telah mempunyai RPS (mereka masih menyebut dengan

istilah RPS, bukan RKS) dan sudah disahkan oleh kepala UPTD pada bulan

Juli 2009 (sebelum KKN mahasiswa/I dimulai). Semua sekolah ini berada di

wilayah Kabupaten Bandung Barat dan RPS mereka berlaku mulai Tahun

2009-2013.

c) Sebanyak 9 sekolah tidak dapat menunjukan keberadaan RKS, baik dalan

bentuk sofcopy maupun hardcopy. Berbagai alasan yang dikemukakan mereka

antara lain: tidak diberikan oleh mahasiswa yang KKN, ditinggal di rumah

kepala sekolah, ada di lemari sekolah tetapi dikunci,

d) Sebanyak 3 sekolah masih berbentuk soft copy dan sebagian dari mereka

belum selesai 100%.


B. Sistem Database Sekolah (SDS)

1. Sebanyak 3 sekolah mempunyai SDS yang lengkap, termasuk format

BOS K1-K6 dan LMS

2. Sebanyak 6 sekolah mempunyai SDS dan hamper lengkap pengisiannya

3. Sisanya (17 sekolah) tidak mempunyai SDS dengan berbagai alasan

seperti: dibawa mahasiswa dan sekolah tidak diberi softcopy, sekolah tidak

punya computer, error/kena virus, dan dibawa staff yang mengelola SDS.

C. Temuan lainnya:

1. Rata-rata setiap sekolah didampingi sekitar 11-13 mahasiswa yag

dibimbing satu orang DPL (Dosen Pembimbing Lapangan) yang dating ke

sekolah satu minggu sekali.

2. Sebagian besar sekolah menilai mahasiswa KKN cukup aktif dalam

membantu pihak sekolah; malalahan tidak sedikit di antara mereka yang

mau mengajar di kelas.

3. Semua sekolah sudah membentuk KK-RKS

4. Ada sebagian kecil sekolah yang membentuk Komite Sekolah yang baru

dengan difasilitasi mahasiswa KKN

5. Sebagian besar sekolah merasa tidak ada pemberdayaan dari para

mahasiswa. Dalam penyusunan RKS maupun SDS, pihak sekolah hanya

berfungsi sebagai penyedia data saja. Proses penyusunan RKS maupun

SDS selanjutnya sepenuhnya dilakukan oleh para Mahasiswa.

6. Sebagian besar Dosen Pembimbing Lapangan hanya bertemua 2X saja

dengan pihak sekolah; yakni pada saat penyerahan dan penarikan

mahasiswa.

C. KESIMPULAN DAN SARAN

1. Kesimpulan

a. Pihak UPI dalam hal ini mahasiswa KKN kurang maksimal dalam

melakukan pendampingan sekolah, terbukti hanya 8 sekolah saja yang

berhasil menyusun RKS, dan hanya sedikit saja yang mengisi SDS

maupun mengerti bagaimana menggunakan SDS.

b. Mahasiswa kurang memberdayakan maupun memberikan pengetahuan

yang cukup tentang program DBE1 kepada sekolah. Penyusunan RKS

the dbe1 service provider program; an evaluation...renstra 7 at the same time in 2010 dbe1 worked...

Documents