local level governance and schooling in decentralizing indonesia l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Local level governance and schooling in decentralizing Indonesia PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Local level governance and schooling in decentralizing Indonesia

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

Local level governance and schooling in decentralizing Indonesia - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 154 Views
  • Uploaded on

Local level governance and schooling in decentralizing Indonesia. Vivi Alatas (EASPR) and Deon Filmer (DECRG). Conference on Governance and Accountability in Social Sector Decentralization February 2004. Status of study / focus of presentation. Preliminary and incomplete study:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Local level governance and schooling in decentralizing Indonesia' - elon


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
local level governance and schooling in decentralizing indonesia

Local level governance and schooling in decentralizing Indonesia

Vivi Alatas (EASPR)

and

Deon Filmer (DECRG)

Conference on Governance and Accountability in Social Sector Decentralization

February 2004

status of study focus of presentation
Status of study / focus of presentation
  • Preliminary and incomplete study:
  • What has been the impact of decentralization on education outcomes?
  • But
    • Limited time that decentralization been implemented in Indonesia;
    • Lags involved in the realization of impacts;
    • Lags in measurement of impacts.
  • This paper and presentation are a description of the assessment strategy and a discussion of some preliminary findings
background decentralization in indonesia
BackgroundDecentralization in Indonesia
  • In 2000: Big-bang decentralization to district (Kabupaten) level
  • In addition to the overall changes, the education sector was particularly affected:
    • Junior Secondary schooling was previously administered by central authorities (through their deconcentrated structures) and is now administered through the local government office along with Primary schooling.
    • Funding for Basic Education now comes from the Local Government budget, and is therefore determined by the local political process.
background decentralization in indonesia4
BackgroundDecentralization in Indonesia
  • Simultaneously, a general move to increased school-based management
  • All this against the backdrop of the East Asian financial crisis which was particularly harsh in Indonesia
background opportunities and risks of decentralization
BackgroundOpportunities and risks of decentralization
  • Potential benefits
    • Reflect demands of local population
    • Potential efficiency gains
    • Innovation
    • Local-level ownership
  • Risks
    • Local allocations to education less than (nationally) socially optimal
    • Local elite capture
    • Lack of experience of the local administration
    • Increase in inequality
  • Literature points to potential importance of autonomy and accountability at the local level
research strategy
Research strategy
  • “Big-bang” rules out any simple counter-factual …“what would have happened without decentralization?”
  • The approach used is to exploit the fact that decentralization will lead to increased variability in factors that affect outcomes
  • Documenting this variability, and relating it to changes in outcomes, is how we propose to assess the impact of decentralization on outcomes
wdr2004 a framework for how decentralization might affect outcomes
WDR2004: A framework for how decentralization might affect outcomes?

Policymakers

Compact and

management

Voice

Students/

Parents

Schools/

teachers

Client power

wdr2004 a framework for how decentralization might affect outcomes8
WDR2004: A framework for how decentralization might affect outcomes?

Policymakers

Compact and

management

Voice

Students/

Parents

Schools/

teachers

Client power

building accountability into the system voice
Building accountability into the systemVoice

Ah, there he is again! How time flies! It’s time for the general election already!

By R. K. Laxman

wdr2004 a framework for how decentralization might affect outcomes10
WDR2004: A framework for how decentralization might affect outcomes?

Policymakers

Compact and

management

Voice

Students/

Parents

Schools/

teachers

Client power

building accountability into the system client power
Building accountability into the systemClient Power

I can’t understand these people. Not a soul here knows how to read or write and yet they want a school

By R. K. Laxman

decentralization increased variability of accountability relationships
Decentralization: increased variability of accountability relationships

Local Policymakers

Policymakers

Local Policymakers

Students/

Parents

Schools/

teachers

Students/

Parents

Schools/

teachers

Students/

Parents

Schools/

teachers

Local Policymakers

Policymakers

Local Policymakers

Students/

Parents

Schools/

teachers

Students/

Parents

Schools/

teachers

Students/

Parents

Schools/

teachers

research strategy13
Research strategy
  • Identify district and school level indicators of
    • Voice
    • Compact
    • Management
    • Client power
  • And exploit how those have changed over time in order to assess the impact of decentralization
current paper
Current paper
  • Use baseline data to describe patterns and relationships between the indicators and outcomes
slide15
Data
  • Governance and Decentralization Survey
    • 177 Districts
    • Conducted in early 2002
    • Instruments to:
      • local administration officers (including the Dinas office)
      • as well to school head teachers
  • School census from MONE
    • All schools
    • Includes data on revenues; expenditure, school characteristics, teacher background,
    • And, our outcome of interest, school average results on national standardized tests (NEM)
slide16
Data
  • District budget data
    • Development (investment) and routine (operational) data for 1994-1999 period
  • Household survey data from SUSENAS
    • District average household per capita expenditures (and its standard deviation)
combining data the matched and unmatched samples
Combining data—the “matched” and “unmatched” samples
  • The limited number of schools in the GDS means that if school level indicators derived from the GDS are used, the sample size shrinks dramatically (about 140 JS schools).
  • So much so that it is hard to identify any statistically significant results in the data analysis.
combining data the matched an unmatched samples
Combining data—the matched an unmatched samples
  • Using district average indicators derived from the GDS allows the analysis to include all schools in the school census (e.g. about 3300 JS schools)
  • Focus (for the moment) on Secondary schools
empirical model
Empirical model
  • Dependent variable = test scores
  • Independent variables =
    • Measures of voice, compact, management, client power
    • Control variables
    • One specification includes school-level education inputs
  • “Cross-sectional” data combining school (and other) data from 1999 with GDS data data from early 2002
  • OLS regression
results
Results
  • Voice
    • More NGO involvement as measured by
      • the number of meetings between NGOs and local government;
      • and NGOs as channels for complaints about education services

is associated with higher test scores

    • The
      • Frequency of media publicity about problems in education

is associated with lower test scores (reverse causality?)

results21
Results
  • Compact
    • Clarity of the schools objectives as measured by
      • head teacher’s involvement in setting the school’s vision and mission

is associated with higher test scores

    • The
      • number meetings between local government education administrators and head teachers

is not associated with test scores (quality of the meetings?)

results22
Results
  • Management
    • Greater
      • head teacher involvement in teacher recruitment

and in

      • school based management

is consistently associated with better test scores

    • But
      • involvement in curriculum,
      • budget allocation,

and decisions regarding

      • teacher discipline

are negatively associated with test scores (reverse causation?)

results23
Results
  • Client power
    • Appears to be a weak force, although
      • involvement of Parent Teacher Associations in teaching tools procurement

and

      • in curriculum

are associated with higher test scores (JS level)

    • But involvement in none of the other areas, e.g.
      • teacher discipline, school based management, textbooks

are associated with outcomes.

looking forward
Looking forward
  • Decentralization is expected to affect indicators that appear associated with learning outcomes
  • Assessing the “impact” of decentralization will be made even harder:
    • Centralized data collection efforts are weakening
    • National standards are falling by the way (e.g. NEM)
    • Ensuring sufficient sample sizes to measure effects is difficult.
  • Hope that new rounds of GDS can overcome some of these constraints, as will working with counterparts to ensure complete and timely data collection