1 
INDONESIA: DECENTRALIZED 
BASIC EDUCATION PROJECT 
FINAL EVALUATION 
VOLUME II: ANNEXES
INDONESIA: DECENTRALIZED BASIC 
EDUCATION PROJECT FINAL 
EVALUATION 
VOLUME II: ANNEXES
 
 
November 2012
This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under 
Task Order 46 of the Global Evaluation and Monitoring (GEM) II BPA, Number EDH-E-00-08-00003-00. It was 
prepared by the Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 
i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Annex 1: Evaluation Scope of Work..............................................................................................ii
Annex 2: List of People Interviewed ........................................................................................... 6
Annex 3: List of Schools Visited ................................................................................................11
1. Primary Schools................................................................................................................11
2. Junior Secondary Schools...................................................................................................12
Annex 4: List of Documents Reviewed......................................................................................13
Annex 5: Interview Guides and Survey Instruments ..................................................................17
1. DINAS Director and Staff and MORA District staff ..............................................................17
2. Donors............................................................................................................................18
3. Education Boards (EB).......................................................................................................20
4. LPMP and P4TK................................................................................................................21
5. MOEC, MORA and KESRA................................................................................................23
6. Master Teacher Trainers/Primary School Supervisors...........................................................25
7. Primary Teachers..............................................................................................................27
8. School Committees (SC) ...................................................................................................28
9. School Principals (MOEC and MORA).................................................................................29
10. Junior Secondary Teachers.............................................................................................30
11. Universities (Module Development Teams, Service Providers, and University Point-of￾Contacts)................................................................................................................................31
12. Junior Secondary School Principals..................................................................................33
13. DINAS and MORA Officials (Focus Group Discussion) .....................................................34
14. Primary Principals (Focus Group Discussion)....................................................................35
15. Primary Teachers (Focus Group Discussion)....................................................................36
16. Junior Secondary School Principals (Focus Group Discussion)............................................37
ii
17. Universities (Module Development Team, Service Provider, and University Point-of-Contact) 
(Focus Group Discussion).........................................................................................................38
Annex 6: Result of Teacher Surveys ..........................................................................................39
Explanation of Primary Teacher Survey ......................................................................................47
Explanation of Junior Secondary Teacher Survey .........................................................................56
Annex 7: USAID Twenty-five Questions....................................................................................58
General Questions...................................................................................................................58
DBE1 Questions......................................................................................................................75
DBE 2 Questions.....................................................................................................................79
DBE3 Questions......................................................................................................................83
Annex 8: Response from U.S Universities.................................................................................87
Annex 9: Responses from Indonesian Universities ...................................................................93
Annex 10: Matrix of schools ......................................................................................................99
Annex 11: School Profile* .......................................................................................................109
PART 1: PRINCIPAL and TEACHER INFORMATION..............................................................109
PART 2: STUDENT INFORMATION* ....................................................................................121
Information in this document has been collected, complied, and authored by the DBE Evaluation Team: 
Agung Purwadi, Annisa Setiadi, David P. Evans, Lynn Losert, M. Basri Wello, Norman Ario Bimo, Nurdin 
Noni, Sean A. Tate, and Tari Savitri. 
1 
Annex 1: Evaluation Scope of Work 
SCOPE OF WORK
PURPOSE
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the impact of the three DBE programs on the quality and 
relevance of basic education in primary and secondary schools in Indonesia. More specifically, the
evaluation should assess how successful the three DBE programs were in terms of achieving their 
primary goals of: 1) assisting local governments and communities to manage education services more 
effectively; 2) enhancing teaching and learning to improve student performance in key subjects such as 
reading, math and science; and 3) ensuring that Indonesia’s youth gain relevant life and work skills to 
better compete for jobs in the modern economy. This evaluation should measure the degree to which 
these goals have been met and the contributing factors that have been responsible for or detracted from 
the achievement of these goals. In addition, this evaluation should provide an initial assessment of the 
sustainability of program achievements and the factors that have contributed to or detracted from the 
sustainability of program achievements.
SERVICES REQUIRED
The contractor shall provide professional and thorough evaluation services sufficient to achieve the 
objectives set forth above. Specifically, the evaluation should address the series of questions that follow.
General Questions
1. What progress was made in terms of performance indicators, targets and program deliverables?
What aspects of the DBE programs proved most and least effective?
2. Were DBE program interventions equally effective in poor and better off schools, in urban and rural 
schools, and in madrasahs and public schools? Similarly, were there provincial or district differences in 
program outcomes?
3. Were there noticeable gender differences in program outcomes at the student level, at the school 
professional level or at the district and provincial administrative staff level?
4. To what extent are DBE interventions showing signs that they are sustainable? What are the factors 
influencing sustainability?
5. Were the central offices of MOEC and MORA sufficiently aware and supportive of the DBE 
interventions - thereby helping to ensure that approaches pioneered by the DBE project were sustained 
and replicated? Conversely, how effectively did DBE engage MOEC and MORA in its interventions?
6. How effective were DBE interventions in improving student learning in reading, math and science? 
What DBE activities have been most responsible for increases in learning achievement?
7. To what extent have DBE best practices at the local, district and provincial levels fed into national 
education policy dialogue and reform?
8. Were there any major areas not supported by DBE that should have been in order to achieve the 
intended program results?
9. How did the DBE districts and provinces engage with their local universities on education issues?
How about with P4TK and with LPMP? What have been some effective strategies for strengthening 
these linkages? What could be other effective strategies?
10. Which of the DBE modules are the most replicated and disseminated? Who does the replication and 
dissemination and why? Are replication practices at the same standard of quality as the original? Which 
modules are replicated in whole and which are replicated in part? Are there steps that could be taken 
for further distribution and use of the modules?
2 
11. Has DBE’s approach to Islamic education been effective? Are there any special needs/issues that 
should be considered for the future in order to engage effectively with MORA?
12. What lessons were learned about large project management in Indonesia’s complex basic education 
sector?
13. How have the DBE interventions contributed to the fulfillment of minimum service standards as well 
as national standards of education in the DBE target districts?
14. How have the DBE projects complemented, overlapped, and/or filled in a void with respect to other 
major international donor efforts such as AusAid, the World Bank, and JICA.
DBE1 Questions
1. The DBE1 project had a mandate to support planning and strengthen management at the local and 
district levels. To what extent were approaches undertaken in support of this mandate successful?
2. How did DBE1 respond to the needs of schools, districts and provincial governments? How effective 
were they in ensuring good practices were institutionalized?
3. What were the most influential factors in increasing the participation of school committee members 
and parents? What are the biggest challenges?
4. How effective was the project in increasing the capacity of personnel at school and district level?
DBE2 Questions
1. The DBE2 project had a mandate to improve the quality of teaching and learning in Indonesia’s 
primary schools. To what extent were approaches undertaken in support of this mandate successful?
2. Are there DBE2 activities or best practices that could or should serve as the basis to reform national 
policy?
3. How effective were the contributions made by Indonesian and U.S. universities to DBE2’s in-service 
teacher training initiatives? What do the Indonesian partner universities see as DBE strengths in terms of 
improving their methods of teacher training?
4. Were new approaches (classroom reading program and distance education pilots) under DBE2 
initiated post mid-term evaluation effective?
DBE3 Questions
1. The DBE3 project originally had a mandate to improve the quality and relevance of education for 
youth with a focus on life and work skills. Following the midterm, DBE3 withdrew from non-formal 
education and focused on a whole-school approach to improving the quality and relevancy of education 
for youth. To what extent was quality/relevance approach successful?
2. How successful was DBE 3 in achieving its three mail goals as set forth in the midterm: 1) quality of 
junior secondary education providers in target districts improved; (2) support to the national in-service 
training system provided; and (3) GOI better positioned to respond to the needs of the junior 
secondary education sector?
3. Are there DBE3 activities or best practices that could or should serve as the basis to reform national 
policy? 
These questions are particularly relevant to the Education Office because a major new USAID education 
program, PRIORITAS, again seeks to strengthen teaching and learning in reading, math and science and 
to improve school management at the school and district level. Thus, any lessons that can be gleaned 
from the existing program could be applied to the future program in order to enhance its chances for 
success. The results of this evaluation will inform USAID, MOEC, MORA, the implementing partners, 
the DBE beneficiaries and the broader community concerned about primary education in Indonesia 
about lessons learned under the DBE program. It is envisioned that two separate reports will need to be 
3 
prepared for these different constituencies. The first report will be a “traditional” evaluation for USAID, 
MOEC, MORA, and the implementing partners.
The second report, written in Indonesian, will be aimed at the DBE recipients and the broader 
education community in Indonesia. It should: a) accurately summarize the findings in the main DBE 
evaluation report; b) provide very practical advice, based on the DBE program results, that will further 
the new basic education program approaches; and c) be both easy to read and lend itself to discussion in 
the general media and central ministries in Indonesia.
APPROACH
The contractor shall propose an evaluation methodology or mix of methodologies for answering the 
questions above that is effective and cost efficient. The methodology is likely to combine both 
quantitative and qualitative approaches that include document reviews, directive observations, mini￾surveys, interviews and the use of focus groups. It is anticipated that one or more field surveys will be 
needed to address some of the questions above. The contractor shall include in its proposal the drafts 
of surveys intended to be used in the evaluation.
In developing its methodology, the contractor must follow the guidance published in the January 2011 
document entitled, “USAID Evaluation Policy.” In particular, the contactor should carefully review 
Section 5 entitled, “Evaluation Requirements.” One example of the many points highlighted in this 
section is that, where available, the evaluation should use sex-disaggregated data and incorporate 
attention to gender relations in all relevant areas. (See Appendix II for more details.). Below is an 
illustrative approach to the evaluation. It may be modified in the proposal submitted by the candidate 
contractor.
1. Conduct interviews with USAID/Indonesia Education Team Members, Menko Kesra, MOEC and
MORA staffs and relevant implementing partners. (Most of the Indonesian staff remains accessible in 
Indonesia. Some of the expatriate staff may have to be reached through the offices of the U.S. partners.)
2. Conduct at least three and as many as five field visits to speak with and observe DBE implementers 
(e.g. teachers) and beneficiaries.
3. Identify possible explanations for the observed findings and trends.
4. Develop an evaluation approach to assess whether any of the explanations are valid and explore 
unidentified explanations.
5. Prepare a draft of the main evaluation report.
6. Present the draft report findings to USAID, Menko Kesra, MOEC, MORA and the DBE implementing 
partners for feedback.
7. After receipt of initial feedback from the parties above on the main evaluation report, draft the 
“lessons learned” report for the primary education community in Indonesia.
8. Present the final evaluation report to USAID for final comment.
9. Present Lessons Learned Report to USAID, Menko Kesra, MOEC and MORA for comment.
10. After receipt of feedback from USAID, Menko Kesra, MOEC and MORA on the lessons learned 
report, prepare and circulate news releases on the report. Also, take other appropriate steps, including 
a dissemination workshop, to publicize the reports.
11. Print copies of the Lessons Learned Report and distribute multiple copies to Menko Kesra,
MOEC and MORA headquarters staff, all provincial and district education offices and all head teachers 
participating in the DBE program.
12. The contractor is welcome to submit additional approaches, beyond the draft press release 
referenced below, to publicize the findings of the Lesson Learned Report.
4 
DELIVERABLES
The contractor shall produce the following materials:
• A final main evaluation report written in English. The main report should include an executive 
summary that provides a description of methods, key findings and recommendations. The executive 
summary should be presented in both English and Indonesian.
• A final Lessons Learned Report, written in Bahasa Indonesia, on DBE activities;
• Presentation of a workshop, open to USAID, Menko Kesra, MOEC and MORA staff to discuss the 
evaluation findings; and presentation of a smaller, more targeted workshop open to USAID and 
newly hired staff from the PRIORITAS program. (Representatives from Menko Kesra, MOEC and 
MORA will also be invited but the focus will be on the transfer of lessons learned to new 
PRIORITAS staff.)
• A draft press release, to be provided to USAID, outlining key findings from the Lessons Learned 
Report.
Electronic copies of the main evaluation report and Lessons Learned Report should be submitted within 
three months of completion to the Development Experience Clearinghouse at http://dec.usaid.gov.
In addition, all performance data used in the evaluation should be presented, in an organized manner, to 
the USAID/Indonesia Education Office where it will be warehoused for future use.
COMPOSITION OF THE EVALUATION TEAM
The evaluation team could be comprised of a home office coordinator, three international consultants 
and one or more Indonesian firms. (An alternative to one of the firms might be faculty and staff from an
Indonesian university that was not involved in the implementation of the DBE programs.) The three 
international consultants should have seven or more years of international experience in one or more of 
the three main goal areas of the DBE programs: 1) assisting local governments and communities manage 
education services more effectively; 2) enhancing teaching and learning to improve student performance; 
and 3) ensuring that youth acquire a high quality and relevant education. In the final weeks of the study, 
it would also be useful to have a fourth international consultant with expertise in making research 
findings accessible to general public.
The local consulting firms used should be independent in the sense that they did not actively participate 
in the implementation of DBE activities. They should, however, have the capacity to assess DBE program 
results and possess the editorial capacity to prepare the Lesson Learned Report. (This effectively means 
having bilingual editorial capacity within one of the Indonesian firms.)
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
The Starting date of this project is the signing date of this BPA call by the Contracting Officer. 
Completion date is November 15, 2012. The Contractor must submit to USAID/Indonesia/Education 
Office copies of the final report in English within eighteen weeks from the starting date.
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED TO CONDUCT THE 
AGREEDUPON PROCEDURES AND THE REPORT
The work program (including detailed steps) and the draft report will be subject to approval and 
acceptance by USAID/Indonesia Education Office.
RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The client for this award is USAID/Indonesia/Education Office. The Contractor shall work in 
coordination with USAID/Indonesia. The liaison for concerns arising throughout the engagement will be 
the USAID/Indonesia/Education Office. 
5 
LOGISTICS
The Contractor shall be responsible for providing all logistical support, including transportation for 
personnel and equipment required for the completion of the assignment.
WORK PLAN/DELIVERABLES
The following time frame for the evaluation is presented for illustrative purposes only, as it is recognized 
that the contractor will develop the actual time frame in consultation with USAID/Indonesia as part of 
the implementation of the evaluation. It is estimated that the evaluation and the production of the 
requested reports will require approximately 18 weeks.
ACTIVITY TIME FRAME
In the U.S. the Evaluation Team reviews documents forwarded by USAID and then travels to Indonesia.
Week 1: The Evaluation Team meets with USAID, MOEC and MORA, and reviews DBE data and 
results. It may be useful to conduct these meetings in a workshop format.
Week 2: Review of data and results continues. Evaluation Team finalizes its research instruments and 
approach. This review might be supplemented by preliminary interviews in Indonesia.
Week 3: Field work gets underway. 
Week 4: Field work continues. 
Week 5-7: Evaluation Team analyzes field work data, develops initial conclusions and recommendations, 
and begins drafting the main evaluation report.
Week 8-9: Evaluation Team presents a summary of key findings to USAID, MOEC and MORA, and 
continues drafting the main evaluation report.
Week 10: Evaluation Team submits first complete draft of the main evaluation report and presents 
findings orally to USAID, MOEC and MORA.
Beginning of Week 11: Two days after submitting the complete draft of the main evaluation report, the 
Evaluation Team makes an oral presentation on the findings to USAID, MONEC and MORA.
Week 11: Evaluation Team begins work on Lessons Learned Report. 
Beginning of Week 12: USAID, MOEC, MORA and Menko Kesra provide feedback on the draft 
evaluation report.
End of Week 12: Evaluation Team submits final draft of the main evaluation report.
End of Week 13: Evaluation Team submits draft Lessons Learned Report, sample press releases and 
other publicity materials.
End of Week 13: Evaluation Team makes administrative arrangements to print and distribute the 
Lessons Learned Report. 
Week 10-14: USAID, MOEC and MORA provide feedback on lessons learned report, sample press 
releases and other publicity materials.
End of Week 14: Evaluation Team finalizes the Lessons Learned Report and publicity materials and 
international members of the team depart Indonesia.
By the end of Week 15: Conduct evaluation results workshops 
Weeks 16-18: Lesson Learned Report and publicity materials distributed to interested parties 
throughout Indonesia.
6 
Annex 2: List of People Interviewed 
NAME POSITION INSTITUTION
Mark R. Doyle Science and Technology Advisor USAID
Lawrence W. Dolan Education Officer USAID
Mimy M. Santika Education Specialist USAID
Esther R. Manurung Project Management Specialist USAID
Jalu Noor Cahyanto Education Specialist USAID
Dan Moulton Former Director: DBE 1 USAID
Stuart Weston Chief of Party: PRIORITAS USAID
Lorna Power Deputy Chief of Party: PRIORITAS USAID
Mark Heyward D&G: PRIORITAS USAID
Pudji Agustine Deputy Nat’l Coordinator, Bridging Team USAID
Lira Herlina Administrative Manager, Bridging Team USAID
Khatib Latief Provincial Liaison Aceh, Bridging Team USAID
Parapat Gultom Prov. Liaison N. Sumatra, Bridging Team USAID
Syihabuddin Provincial Liaison Banten, Bridging Team USAID
Ajar Budi Kuncoro Prov. Liaison Central Java Bridging Team USAID
Supriono Subakir Provincial Liaison East Java, Bridging Team USAID
Nur Jannah Ex-district DBE Coordinator, Purwarejo USAID
Agus Danar Ex-district DBE Coordinator, Karanganyar USAID
Lutfi Rahman Ex-district DBE Coordinator, Kudus USAID
Mae Chu Chang Head of Human Development WORLD BANK
T. Erita Nurhalim Senior Operations Officer WORLD BANK
Santoso BERMUTU WORLD BANK
Petra BERMUTU WORLD BANK
Brian Spicer Education Quality Team Leader AUSAID
Karen Taylor International Education Advisor AUSAID
Nandang Amanda Education Management Advisor AUSAID
Agus Sartono Deputy IV MENKO KESRA
Femmy Kartika Assistant Deputy for Basic Education MENKO KESRA
Fuad Abdul Hamid Ex - Deputy IV MENKO KESRA
Suyanto Directorate General for Basic Education DIKNAS/MOEC
Palogo Balianto Directorate for Primary Schooling DIKNAS/MOEC
Didik Suhardi Directorate for Jr. Secondary Schooling DIKNAS/MOEC
Fasli Jalal Ex – Vice Minister DIKNAS/MOEC
Nur Hadi Amiyanto Secretary: Central Java Provincial MOEC
Edi Cahyono Head of Program: Central Java Provincial MOEC
Alfrida Kriswati Head of Teacher Service: Central Java Provincial MOEC
Jhonny Lorang Head of Basic Education: Central Java Provincial MOEC
7 
Hari Wulyanto Head of Curriculum: Central Java Provincial MOEC
Ernest Septyanti Head of Planning: Central Java Provincial MOEC
Panca Astuti Head of BECTF: Central Java Provincial MOEC
Syaiful Safri Head of Office: North Sumatera Provincial MOEC
Baharuddin Secretary: North Sumatera Provincial MOEC
Henri Siregar Head of Primary Education: N. Sumatera Provincial MOEC
L. Hanum Daulay Head of Secondary Education: N. Sumatera Provincial MOEC
Edward Sinaga Head of Personnel: North Sumatera Provincial MOEC
Rosmawaty General Affairs Staff :North Sumatera Provincial MOEC
Syafrida General Affairs Staff :North Sumatera Provincial MOEC
Jamun Effendi Head of Madrasah & BE :Central Java Provincial MORA
H. Ahmad Hanafi Head of Administration: North Sumatera Provincial MORA
Yulizar Head of Madrasah & BE: North Sumatera Provincial MORA
Khairul Syam Head of Social Order: North Sumatera Provincial MORA
Totoh Santoso Director: West Java LPMP
Paulus Mujino Instructor: Central Java LPMP
Tri Mulyani Instructor: Central Java LPMP
Frans Head of Information System: West Java LPMP
Ignun Head of General Affairs: West Java LPMP
A. Qashas Rahman Director: South Sulawesi LPMP
H. Bambang Minarji Director: North Sumatera LPMP
Dame A. Sitanggang Director Assistant: North Sumatera LPMP
T. Ginting Head of FPMP: North Sumatera LPMP
Syahdian Head of PMS: North Sumatera LPMP
Indra Sakti Head of General Affairs: North Sumatera LPMP
Surya Dermawan Secretary of G.A.: North Sumatera LPMP
Akhmad Hadi Head Secretary: North Sumatera LPMP
Miswuryanti Head of S1 Secretary: North Sumatera LPMP
Ely Kesumawati Head of FPMP Secretary: North Sumatera LPMP
Neni Juli Astuti Head of PMS Secretary: North Sumatera LPMP
M. Faisal S. Public Relations: North Sumatera LPMP
M. Yakub Instructor, North Sumatera LPMP
Dermalince Sitinjak Instructor, North Sumatera LPMP
Siti Nawardi Instructor, North Sumatera LPMP
Siti Syamsiani Instructor, North Sumatera LPMP
Nurhaiti Purba Instructor, North Sumatera LPMP
Ezra Instructor, North Sumatera LPMP
Miftah Secretary, Purworejo LPMP
Farid Sholichin Head of Education, Purworejo LPMP
Choirudin Supervisor, Purworejo LPMP
Sutarja Supervisor of Junior Secondary, Purworejo LPMP
Zarkasi Head of Madrasah & BE, Boyolali LPMP
H. Ni’am Ansori Head of Office, Demak LPMP
8 
Farikhin Head of Madrasah & BE, Demak LPMP
Suyadi Supervisor LPMP
H. Mangendre Head of Madrasah & BE, Pangkep LPMP
Syarifuddin Head of Office, Makassar LPMP
Al Ahyu Head of Office, Binjai LPMP
Ponu Siregar Head of Madrasah & BE, Binjai LPMP
A. Munir Aritonang Head of Administration, North Tapanuli LPMP
Widodo Director, P4TK Math P4TK
Fajar Sadik Head of General Affairs, P4TK Math P4TK
Ganung Anggraini Instructor,P4TK Math P4TK
Pujianti Instructor, P4TK Math P4TK
H. Mahzun Zain Regent of Purworejo, Central Java City/District Government
H. S. A. Hamid Regent of Pangkep, South Sulawesi City/District Government
Idaham Mayor of Binjai, North Sumatera City/District Government
Torang Tobing Regent of North Tapanuli, North Sumatera City/District Government
Herry Head of Basic Education, Tangerang City/District MOEC
Hamidi Staff of Basic Education, Purworejo City/District MOEC
Sunaryo Member of Education Board, Purworejo City/District MOEC
Drajatno Head of Office, Boyolali City/District MOEC
Jono Trimanto Head of Curriculum, Boyolali City/District MOEC
Suroto Head of Junior Secondary, Boyolali City/District MOEC
Retno Palupi Head of DBE Replication, Boyolali City/District MOEC
Sumarno Supervisor, Boyolali City/District MOEC
Marsono Supervisor, Boyolali City/District MOEC
Hartono Head of Secondary School Division, Kudus City/District MOEC
Sugiarto Secretary, Demak City/District MOEC
Khomeid Head of Kindergarten & Primary, Demak City/District MOEC
Umi Furyani Head of Program Planning, Demak City/District MOEC
Mas’udah Supervisor City/District MOEC
H. M. Ridwan Head of Office, Pangkep City/District MOEC
Muhammad Nasir Head of Basic Education, Pangkep City/District MOEC
Sitaurusdin Head of Office, Sidrap City/District MOEC
H. Abbas Laude Head of Education Board, Sidrap City/District MOEC
Buhari Head of Education Board, Soppeng City/District MOEC
H. Mahmudin Head of Subdistrict Wattang, Soppeng City/District MOEC
Idham Supervisor, Soppeng City/District MOEC
Sandang Supervisor, Soppeng City/District MOEC
Nur Alim Supervisor, Soppeng City/District MOEC
Mahmud Head of Office, Makassar City/District MOEC
Bahrum Head of Curriculum, Makassar City/District MOEC
Bahnan Abubakar Supervisor of Junior Secondary, Makassar City/District MOEC
Wahid Supervisor, Makassar City/District MOEC
Dasril Suar Member of Education Board, Binjai City/District MOEC
9 
Haryoto Member of Education Board, Binjai City/District MOEC
A. M. Situmeang Secretary of EB, North Tapanuli City/District MOEC
Gisler Manulang Supervisor, North Tapanuli City/District MOEC
Ruhaya Hutabarat Supervisor, North Tapanuli City/District MOEC
Adi Sinaga Ex District Facilitator, North Tapanuli City/District MOEC
H. Nurudin Head of Office, Purworejo City/District MORA
Miftah Secretary, Purworejo City/ District MORA
Farid Sholichin Head of Education, Purworejo City/ District MORA
Choirudin Supervisor of Prim. Ed., Purworejo City/ District MORA
Sutarja Supervisor of Junior Secondary, Purworejo City/ District MORA
Zarkasi Head of Madrasah & BE, Boyolali City/ District MORA
H. Ni’am Ansori Head of Office, Demak City/ District MORA
Farikhin Head of Madrasah & BE, Demak City/ District MORA
Suyadi Supervisor City/ District MORA
H. Mangendre Head of Madrasah & BE, Pangkep City/ District MORA
Syarifuddin Head of Office, Makassar City/ District MORA
Al Ahyu Head of Office, Binjai City/ District MORA
Ponu Siregar Head of Madrasah & Basic Education, Binjai City/ District MORA
A. Munir Aritonang Head of Administration, North Tapanuli City/ District MORA
Hasan Asari Vice Rector I, IAIN Medan University 
Ramli Abdul Wahid Vice Rector IV, IAIN Medan University 
Zainul Fuad Head of Culture & Language, IAIN Medan University 
Muhammad Nuh PMM Staff, IAIN Medan University 
Nirwana Anas Lecturer, IAIN Medan University 
Fibri Rakhmawati Lecturer, IAIN Medan University 
Solihah T. Sumanti Lecturer, IAIN Medan University 
Irwan Nasution Lecturer, IAIN Medan University 
Ibnu Hajar Rector, UNIMED University 
Khairil Ansari Vice Rector I, UNIMED University 
Berlin Sibarani Vice Rector IV, UNIMED University 
Ramli Sitorus FIP Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Chairil Anwar FIP Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Mastiana FIP Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Daitin Tarigan, FIP Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Badiran FBS Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Wisman FBS Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Inayah Hanum FBS Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Suprakisno FBS Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Elly Djulia FMIPA Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Izwita Dewi Lubis FMIPA Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Lis Siti Zahro FMIPA Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Tri Harsono FMIPA Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Betty Marisi Turnip FMIPA Lecturer, UNIMED University 
10
Ali N. Hutabarat FIS Lecturer ,UNIMED University 
Tumiar Sidauruk FIS Lecturer ,UNIMED University 
Hafnita S. D. Lubis FIS Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Abdul Hamid FT Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Arif Rahman FT Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Rahmat Mulyana, FT Lecturer, UNIMED University 
Abil Mansyur Vice Rector IV Staff, UNIMED University 
Johannes J. Gultom Vice Rector IV Staff ,UNIMED University 
Winsyahputra Vice Rector IV Staff, UNIMED University 
11
Annex 3: List of Schools Visited
1. Primary Schools
PROVINCE
CENTRAL JAVA SOUTH SULAWESI NORTH KALIMANTAN BANTEN
PURWOREJO PANGKEP BINJAI TANGERANG
SDN Kaliurip SDN 28 Kemampuan MIN 1 Binjai SDN Sukasari 4
MIN Bener MIS Al Muqorobbin 
MI Glagah Malang MIS Ikwanul Mukminin
SDN Loano SDN 020255
SDN Maron 1 SDN 020256
SDN 020260
SDN 020263
SDN 023894
 SDN 023901 
SDN 028288
BOYOLALI SIDRAP TAPANULI UTARA 
MI Gunung Wijil SDB 10 Pangkajenne MIN Peanornor
MI Ringin SDN 11Pangkejenne SDN 173100 
SD Sukabumi SDN 4 Otting SDN 173102
SD Paras 1 SDN 3 Otting SDN 173104 
SD Randusari SDN 173119
MI Kopen SDN 173133
SDN 178492 
KUDUS SOPPENG 
MI Manafiul Ulum MI Assaddiyah Cabbenge 
SD N 1 Kaliwungu SD 34 Tokabbeng 
MI Sidorekso SD 161 Karya
SDN 1 Gondosari SD 166 Lapurawung 
SDN 3 Prambatan Kidul SDN 1 Lamappapoleware
MI Tsamratul Wathon SDN 23 Tanete 
SDN 28 Malaka
DEMAK MAKASSAR
MI Wonosalm SD 202 Walennae 
SDN 13 Bintoro SD Islam Al Bayan
SDN Sidomulyo 2 SDN 3 Bertingkat 
MI Sultan Fatah SDN IKEKP 1
MI Tanwirudholam SDN IKEP 2 
SDN Cabean 2 
12
2. Junior Secondary Schools
PROVINCE
CENTRAL JAVA SOUTH SULAWESI NORTH SUMATRA BANTEN
PURWOREJO PANGKEP BINJAI TANGERANG
MTsN Bener MtsN Ma'rang MTs Al Washliyah MTsN 1 Tangerang
SMPN 19 Purworejo SMPN Pangkajenne MTsN Binjai SMP Nusa Putra
SMPN 6 Purworejo SMP N 9 MTS Dua Putra
MTsN Loano SMPN 10 
SMPN 31 Purworejo SMPN 11 
SMPN 2
 SMPN 7 
BOYOLALI SIDRAP TAPANULI UTARA 
MTsN Cepogo MI DDI Pangsid MTsN Peanornor 
SMPN 1 Cepogo SMPN 4 Duapitue SMPN 1 Siborong 
SMPN 2 Ngemplak SMPN 1 Sipoholon 
SMPN 1 Klego SMPN 1Tarutung 
MTsN Ngandong SMPN 4 Tarutung 
MTsN Sambi 
KUDUS SOPPENG 
MTsN 2 Mejobo Kudos MTs Takalalla 
SMPN 2 Jekulo SMPN 3 Watang Soppeng 
MTs Nurul Ulum SMPN Lili Rilau 
SMPN 3 Jekulo 
SMP 1 Bae 
MTs Banat 
Demak Makassar 
MTs Gajah Demak MTsN Biring Kanayya 
MTs NU Demak MTsN Gunungsari 
MTs Raudlatul Mu'alimin SMP PGRI 
SMPN 1 Mijen Demak SMPN 3 Makassar 
SMPN 1 Mranggen SMPN 33 
SMPN 5 Demak 
13
Annex 4: List of Documents Reviewed 
Ali, Mohammad, J. Kos, P. Lietz, D. Nugroho, Furquon, A. Zainul, and E. Emilia. (2011) Quality of education in 
madrasah: Main study. Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Religious Affairs, Australian Council for Educational 
Research, and Indonesian University of Education. 
Basic Education Capacity-Trust Fund (BEC-TF) Secretariat. (2010-2011) Governance matters to education outcomes. 
Jakarta: Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education. 
Cannon, Robert and R. Arlianti. (August 21, 2009). Transition to and participation in junior secondary school. DBE3 
Research Report. Jakarta: USAID/Indonesia.
Cannon, Robert and R. Arlianti. (November 27, 2009). An exploratory study of the ujian nasional. DBE3 Research 
Report. Jakarta: USAID/Indonesia. 
Center for Faculty Excellence (2009) Classroom activities for active learning. For Your Consideration … Suggestions 
and Reflections on Teaching and Learning. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 
http://cfe.unc.edu/pdfs/fyc3_Web.pdf
Clarke, Marguerite. (2012) What matters most for student assessment systems: A framework paper. Working Paper 1. 
Washington: DC: The World Bank.
Education Development Center. (2006). Annual report: decentralized basic education, Indonesia component 2: teaching 
and learning. Boston, MA: Education Development Center and USAID Indonesia. 
Education Development Center. (2009). Impact, Results & Progress: DBE2 Annual Report Summary. Boston, MA: 
Education Development Center (EDC). 
Education Development Center. (2008). Executive summary: impact, results & progress DBE2 monitoring and evaluation 
report FY 2008. Boston, MA: Education Development Center (EDC) and USAID Indonesia. 
Education Development Center. (2010). Impact, results and progress: DBE2 annual monitoring and evaluation report FY 
2010. Boston, MA: Education Development Center (EDC) and USAID Indonesia. 
Education Development Center. (2011a). Final report (vol. 1): DBE 2 project 2005-2011. Boston, MA: Education 
Development Center (EDC). 
Education Development Center. (2011b). Final report (vol. 2): DBE 2 project 2005-2011. Boston, MA: Education 
Development Center (EDC). 
Education Development Center. (2011c). Final report (vol. 3): DBE 2 project 2005-2011. Boston, MA: Education 
Development Center (EDC). 
Fast Track Initiative (FTI). (2008). Guidelines for capacity development in the education sector. Washington, DC.
Fearnley-Sander, M., Nainggolan, P., Ratcliffe, M., Riddell, A., Serper, S., & Taylor, G. (2008). Pre-feasibility study 
mission: support to basic education in Indonesia. European Commission and AusAid.
Ginsberg, M. (2009) Pedagogies as a reform initiative: Synthesis of case studies. American Institutes for Research, 
USAID: EQUIP 1http://www.equip123.net/docs/e1-ActiveLearningSynthesis_PrintReady.pdf
Gorgens, Marelize.and J. Kusek. (2009). Making monitoring and evaluation systems work. Washington DC: The World 
Bank. 
Handy, Charles. (1994). The age of paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 
14
Ho, J., Mitchell, J., Mardjohan, M., & Surahman, I. (2009). Impact, results and progress: DBE 2 monitoring and evaluation 
report FY 2009. Boston, MA: Education Development Center (EDC). 
Jalal, F., Samani, M., Chang, M.C., Stevenson, R., Ragatz, A.B., & Negara, S.D. (2009). Teacher certification in Indonesia: 
a strategy for teacher quality improvement. Jakarta, Indonesia: The World Bank. 
Kusek, J. and R. Rist. (2004) Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system. Washington DC: The 
World Bank.
Ministry of National Education Indonesia, & Japan International Cooperation Agency. (2008). End-line survey report 
for program for strengthening in-service teacher training of mathematics and science education at junior secondary 
level (SISTTEMS). International Development Center of Japan.
Ministry of National Education (2010) Ministry of National Education Strategic Plan 2010-2014 (RENSTRA), Jakarta, 
Indonesia. 
Mitchell Group, Inc. (2008a).The midterm evaluation of USAID/Indonesia’s decentralized basic education (DBE) project.
Washington, D.C.: USAID. 
Power, L. and Bachri, W. (n.d.). Project dissemination report. Arlington, VA: Save the Children, IRD and USAID.
RTI International.(2006a). More effective decentralized education management and governance annual report April 2005 
to 30 September 2006. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International.(2006b). More effective decentralized education management and governance baseline report edition 1. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International. (2006c). More effective decentralized education management and governance monitoring progress 
report 1. September 30, 2006. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International.(2007a). More effective decentralized education management and governance annual report October 
2006 to September 2007. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International.(2007b). More effective decentralized education management and governance baseline report edition 2. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International. (2007c). More effective decentralized education management and governance monitoring progress 
report 2. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International.(2008). More effective decentralized education management and governance annual report October 
2007 to September 2008. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International.(2009a). More effective decentralized education management and governance annual report October 
2008 to September 2009. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International. (2009b). More effective decentralized education management and governance monitoring progress 
report 6. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International.(2009c). Study of the legal framework for the Indonesian basic education sector. Research Triangle 
Park, NC: RTI International and USAID
RTI International. (2009d). Decentralized basic education 1: Management and governance. Good practice, dissemination 
and sustainability: Implications for policy. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID.
RTI International. (2009e). Decentralized basic education 1: Public private alliance. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI 
International and USAID.
RTI International.(2010a). More effective decentralized education management and governance annual report October 
2009 to September 2010. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
15
RTI International. (2010b). More effective decentralized education management and governance monitoring progress 
report 7. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International. (2010c). Decentralized basic education 1: Management and governance: Good practice in implementing 
Indonesian decentralized basic education policies. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID.
RTI International. (2010d). Decentralized basic education 1: Management and governance: Implementing school-based 
management in Indonesia: The DBE1 experience: 2005-2010. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International 
and USAID.
RTI International.(2011a). More effective decentralized education management and governance annual report October 
2010 to September 2011. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International.(2011b). More effective decentralized education management and governance (DBE1) final report. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International. (2011c). More effective decentralized education management and governance DBE1 project completion 
report, volume I appendix A: consolidated project implementation data. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI 
International and USAID. 
RTI International. (2011d). More effective decentralized education management and governance DBE1 project completion 
report – volume I appendix B: data by province. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID. 
RTI International. (2011e). Assessment of dissemination of DBE1 ICT innovations: MONE’s EMIS reporting technology. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID.
RTI International. (2011f). Decentralized basic education 1: Management and governance: Provincial plans and polices 
facilitated by DBE1in Aceh and East Java. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID.
RTI International. (2011g). Replication of school based management activities and adoption/adaptation of DBE1school￾based management materials by MONE BOS training team (Decentralized basic education 1: Management and 
governance). Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International and USAID.
Royer, J.M. (2010). Final report 2009-2010 student learning evaluation DBE2 project. Amherst: University of 
Massachusetts.
Save the Children. (2009). Decentralized basic education (DBE3) supplementary monitoring report – monitoring a sample 
of schools in the 25 extension districts which have not received project assistance. Westport, CT: Save the 
Children, Academy for Educational Development, and International Relief & Development.
Save the Children (2010a). Decentralized basic education (DBE3) assessing the impact of the DBE3 program on student
performance – second round assessment of a sample of students in junior secondary schools (SMPs and MTs) in 
the 25 DBE3 extension districts. Westport, CT: Save the Children, Academy for Educational Development, 
and International Relief & Development.
Save the Children. (2010b). Decentralized basic education (DBE3) monitoring of a group of comparison schools – 
monitoring a sample of schools in the 25 extension districts which have not received project assistance. Westport, 
CT: Save the Children, Academy for Educational Development, and International Relief & Development. 
Save the Children. (2010c). Decentralized basic education three (DBE3) monitoring report 2010 - activities conducted, 
impact on partner schools, and impact on student performance. Westport, CT: Save the Children and 
International Relief & Development. 
Save the Children. (2011a). Decentralized basic education three (DBE3) monitoring report 2011 – activities conducted, 
impact on partner schools, and impact on student performance. Westport, CT: Save the Children and 
International Relief & Development. 
16
Save the Children. (2011b). Decentralized basic education three (DBE3) relevant education for youth – Volume 1: main 
project report. Washington, DC: Save the Children. Westport, CT: Save the Children and International 
Relief & Development. 
Save the Children. (2011c). Decentralized basic education three (DBE3) relevant education for youth – Volume 2: 
provincial reports. Westport, CT: Save the Children. 
Save the Children. (2011d). Decentralized basic education three (DBE3) relevant education for youth – Volume 3: 
annexes. Westport, CT: Save the Children. 
Senge, Peter. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, Peter et al. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline field-book for educators, parents and everyone who cares 
about education. New York: Doubleday/Currency. 
USAID. (2009). A partnership for prosperity: USAID strategy Indonesia 2009-2014. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
USAID (n/d) First Principles: Designing Effective Education Programs for In-service Teacher Professional Development. 
Washington D.C.: USAID, EQUIP 1.
USAID. (2011a). Evaluation learning from experience: USAID evaluation policy. Washington, D.C.: USAID. 
USAID.(2011b). 2011 USAID education strategy implementation guidance- Volume II, Annexes. Washington, D.C.: 
USAID.
USAID.(2011c). 2011 USAID education strategy implementation guidance- Volume III- Recent evidence on primary grade 
reading. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
USAID.(2011d). 2011 USAID education strategy implementation guidance- Volume III- Recent evidence on primary grade 
reading. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
USAID.(2011e). 2011 USAID education strategy implementation guidance. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
World Bank (2010) Transforming Indonesia’s teaching force. Volume II: From pre-service training to retirement. 
World Bank: Jakarta. 
17
Annex 5: Interview Guides and Survey Instruments 
1. DINAS Director and Staff and MORA District staff 
The objectives of the interview are to: a) gain an understanding of the District’s involvement in DBE and what 
impacts DBE interventions have had student learning, school governance, and school planning, b) gather opinions 
and facts about the most and least effective elements of DBE; and c) gather information about best practices and 
lessons learned that can be applied to any future program, especially PRIORITAS.
1. Can you briefly tell us a little about your district, e. g. number of primary and junior secondary schools, 
number of teachers and employees, responsibilities and mandates, etc.?
2. What was the type and level of involvement of DBE program elements and number of schools (what did they 
do in cooperation with you)? 
3. From your perspective in DINAS (MORA), what activities within the DBE project proved to be the most 
effective? Why? (Please try to examine all three components of DBE.)
4. From your perspective in DINAS (MORA), what activities within the DBE appear to have been the least 
effective? Why?(Please try to examine all three components of DBE.)
5. How effective was the effort expended by DBE to increase the capacity of personnel at the school level? 
Please explain how capacity was improved.
6. How effective were the resources and effort expended by DBE to increase the capacity of personnel at the 
district level? Please explain how capacity was improved.
7. What activities should have been included in DBE or should be in any future program(such as PRIORITAS) 
that would improve the performance of the program? 
8. Has the District made any effort to replicate the DBE program within the District in other sub-districts and 
school? How have you done that and how successful has that been?
9. DBE appears to have influenced education reform at the district and school level but, at the same time, the 
Central MOEC (MORA) does not seem to understand or appreciate the contributions the DBE program 
made. How could the DBE or any future programs better communicate with the Central Ministry and/or 
Provincial Governments?
10. What are the best practices (activities that worked very well) from the implementation of DBE?What are the 
lessons learned (both positive and negative) from the implementation of DBE?
11. What lessons learned or best practices would you highlight for incorporation into USAID’s follow-on 
program?
12. Are there any additional points or comments that you would like to make to inform USAID, DBE, and the 
development of future programs in basic education?
18
2. Donors
The objective of this interview is to obtain information on the perspectives and opinions from donor agencies on 
a) the performance of the DBE projects (1, 2, and 3) and b) how the experience and lessons learned from the DBE 
projects can effectively contribute to education reform.
1. To begin, what your does organization do in education in Indonesia. Please explain briefly.
2. We would like to know your general, overall impressions of the DBE projects. Please tell us what you know of 
these projects (DBE1, 2, and 3); their objectives and performance. Tell us what you can about the focus of 
each of these projects.
INTERVIEWER NOTES/GUIDE:
Use as necessary.
DBE1 focused on governance and management of education, principally at the District level.
DBE2 focused on student learning and teaching.
DBE3 focused, at least in its second phase, on Junior Secondary schools). 
The Decentralized Basic Education Program (DBE), begun in 2005, focused on improving the quality and 
relevance of basic education in primary and junior secondary schools (JSS). Through technical assistance and 
training, the program had three goals:
 to assist local governments and communities to manage education services more effectively;
 to enhance teaching and learning to improve student performance in key subjects such as math, 
science and reading; and
 to ensure Indonesia’s youth gain more relevant life and work skills to better compete for jobs in the 
modern economy. 
3. How effectively did USAID coordinate with the donor community in the initial planning stages of the DBE 
project? Was an initial sector analysis done to identify gaps in the education sector that could be met by the
DBE?
4. From what you know, was the work of DBE in education complementary to that of donor organizations, 
especially yours?
5. From your perspective, what activities within the DBE projects proved to be the most effective in advancing 
education reform in the country? Why? Please explain. 
 
6. From your perspective, in which of the three content subjects which DBE focused on, (reading, math, and 
science) did the DBE most impact student learning(was most effective)? 
19
7. Based on your knowledge and/or experience, to what extent have DBE best practices at the local, district and 
provincial levels become part of national education policy dialogue and reform? Please explain. [Interviewer 
Notes: Use visual aid rating scale as appropriate.]‘Best Practices’ are learning/teaching techniques and 
methods that are best in improving the quality and effectiveness of education. 
8. What other activities could DBE have supported that would have added value to the sector?
9. How can donors improve cooperation to avoid over-laps in programming?
10. What interventions (type) do you think are still needed in this sector (Basic Education)? Please explain.
11. What is your perception of donors’ communication and collaboration with MOEC and MORA? What steps 
would you recommend to improve that communication and collaboration? Please explain. 
12. Could donor communication and collaboration between the DBE projects and your donor agency have been 
improved? How? Please explain.
13. Please give any other thoughts on the DBE projects including their performance and effectivenessthat you 
think would be useful to know. 
20
3. Education Boards (EB)
The objectives of the interview are to obtain information of the perspective and opinion of Education Board 
members on a) the interaction between universities and provinces/district on education issues, b) the experiences 
and lessons learned from DBE projects and c) more effective engagement of education stakeholders in future 
programs. 
1. What is your role as a member of an Education Board? What activities are you engaged in?
2. In your opinion, how was the interaction/engagement between Districts/Provinces and local universities on 
education issues (before and after the DBE)?
3. How effective was this interaction and how could be it improved? Please explain.
4. What lessons were learned from the implementation of DBE to improve involvement of the school 
committees to strengthen education at the school level?
5. Based on your knowledge and experience, to what extent have DBE best practices and lesson learned 
contributed to education policy (of the MOEC and MORA) at the local, district and national levels?
6. What lessons learned or best practices would you highlight for incorporation into any follow-up education 
programs?
7. Are there any additional points or comments that you would like to share with USAID about the development 
of future programs in basic education (in public schools and Madrasah)?
21
4. LPMP and P4TK
 
The objective of this interview is to obtain information on the perspectives and opinions of LPMPs and P4TKs on 
a) the performance of the DBE project and b) the identification and use of best practices and lessons learned from 
DBE to assist similar future projects to be more effective. 
1. To begin, it would be helpful to know about the work of this LPMP /P4TK. Please tell us briefly about the 
amount and kinds of work that are being done. Briefly explain your own role and work in the LPMP/P4TK. 
2. What challenges are currently facing your LPMP/P4TK? 
3. From your perspective, what are your overall impressions of DBE projects? Please tell us what you know from 
your experience and knowledge, about the DBE components (DBE1, 2 and 3), their objectives and 
performance. 
INTERVIEWER NOTES/GUIDE:
Use as necessary.
DBE1 focused on governance and management of education, principally at the District level.
DBE2 focused on student learning and teaching.
DBE3 focused, at least in its second phase, on Junior Secondary schools). 
The Decentralized Basic Education Program (DBE), begun in 2005, focused on improving the quality and 
relevance of basic education in primary and junior secondary schools (JSS). Through technical assistance and 
training, the program had three goals:
 to assist local governments and communities to manage education services more effectively;
 to enhance teaching and learning to improve student performance in key subjects such as math, 
science and reading; and
 to ensure Indonesia’s youth gain more relevant life and work skills to better compete for jobs in the 
modern economy. 
General Questions on DBE and LPMPs/P4TKs
4. From your knowledge and experience, we would like to know if andhow the DBE districts engaged or 
interacted with your LPMP/P4TK. In what ways did this happen and how useful was this interaction? Please 
explain.
For LPMPs 
5. As an institution responsible for quality assurance of education in the region, has this LPMP been involved in 
the quality assurance of DBE programs? If yes, please explain how?
6. As an institution responsible for quality assurance, from your perspective were DBE programs/activities 
equally effective in Madrasahs and public schools? In rural and urban schools? In rich and poor schools? Please 
explain. 
22
7. What should the LPMP be doing to assure the quality of education provided by the schools? 
For P4TKs 
8. How has your P4TK been involved in in-service teacher training for schools? Please explain.
9. As an institution responsible for in-service teacher training in this region, what has this P4TK done to improve 
that training?
For LPMPs and P4TKs
10. Have the DBE projects had an impact on the work of your LPMP/P4TK, and if so, how (in what ways) have 
they affected that work? To your knowledge, has the LPMP/P4TK adopted any specific DBE ideas, methods 
and techniques in its own programs and if so which ones? 
11. From your knowledge and experience, what activities within the DBE projects proved to be most effective? 
Why? Explain.
Concluding Questions
12. What recommendations would you make toimprove the working relationships (quality of interaction) with 
your LPMP/P4TK and future education programs? 
13. What recommendations would you make to improve the materials and practices of the LPMP/P4TK? Explain.
14. Is there any other topic related to DBE and the work of LPMP/P4TK that has not been discussed here that 
you would like to add? 
23
5. MOEC, MORA and KESRA
The objective of this interview is to obtain information on the perspectives and opinions from government officials 
on a)their sense of ownership in the DBE program, b) the usefulness/effectiveness of DBE activities on education 
provision, and c) inputs to policy dialogue or reform. 
1. To begin, please tell us what you know about the DBE projects.
2. From your perspective, were the central offices of MORA, MOEC and KESRA sufficiently aware and 
encouraging of the DBE interventions, adding support to sustainability and replication of good practices? How 
effectively did DBE engage MOEC, MORA and KESRA in its interventions?
3. Was MOEC/MORA/KESRA involved in the planning of the DBE project from the beginning? What kinds of 
input did central government bodies give to the planning of DBE?
4. Please explain the approaches used by DBE to inform MOEC/MORA/KESRA of DBE interventions, progress 
and performance. 
5. Did DBE have any ‘champions’ within your Ministry? 
6. What could have been done more effectively by DBE to build better relationships?
For MORA
7. Has DBE’s approach to Islamic education been effective? Are there any special needs/issues that should be 
considered for the future in order to engage effectively with MORA? Please explain.
8. What changes does MORA contemplate undertaking at the provincial and district levels to effectively 
participate in future programming activities? How do Madrasahs need to be supported to have an equal 
opportunity to perform as well as public schools? 
9. What would MORA like to gain from involvement in future education programming (as they did with DBE)? 
How can future programming effectively engage with MORA to improve Madrasah education? 
10. What are the challenges of working with Madrasahs to improve education provision (given the generally poor 
resources, under-qualified teachers, and centralized management of the schools)?
For All
11. Were there noticeable gender differences in program outcomes at the student level, at the school 
professional level, or at the district and provincial administrative staff levels? What efforts do you make to 
address gender differences in education at all levels?
12. To what extent are DBE interventions showing signs that they are sustainable? What are the factors 
influencing sustainability of good practices?
13. From your own knowledge or experience, which among the DBE activities or best practices could have the 
most impact on the reform of national policy? Please give you top three choices of activities that could impact 
education policy. Please explain why you picked these.
14. To what extent have DBE best practices at the local, district and provincial levels been fed into national 
education policy dialogue and reform? [Interviewer Note: “Best Practices” are learning/teaching techniques 
and methods that are “best” in improving the quality and effectiveness of education.]
15. Are there any elements of DBE that are to become MOEC/MORA/KESRA policy in the next year or two? 
24
16. From the perspective of donor coordination at the central level, how have the DBE projects complemented, 
overlapped, and/or filled in a void in the education sector with respect to other major international donor 
efforts such as AusAid, the World Bank, and JICA? Which interventions have other donors adapted to 
complement their own programs?
17. What remaining gaps in the education sector can future programming fill?
18. What other issues about DBE do you think are important that haven’t been discussed?
25
6. Master Teacher Trainers/Primary School Supervisors
The objectives of the interview are to collect opinions from master teacher trainers/school supervisorsabout the
DBE programon: 1)the contribution of the DBE interventions to the fulfillment of minimum service standards and 
national standards of education in target districts; 2) the extent to which the DBE approaches have successfully 
improved of quality of teaching and learning in target schools; 3) the effectiveness of the partnership of Indonesian 
and US universities on in-service teacher training initiatives; and 4) the effectiveness of the new activities 
(classroom reading programs and distance education pilots) initiated post mid-term evaluation. 
1. How long have you been a school supervisor or MTT in this subdistrict? When were you involved as an MTT? 
Please tell us briefly about your own role and work as a school supervisor/MTT?
2. What do you know about the DBE projects? 
Minimum Service Standards and National Standards of Education
3. What has DBE done to contribute most to the fulfillment of Minimum Service Standards? 
The Minimum Service Standards include: 1) a maximum of 32 students per class, 2)two teachers with S1 or 
D4 qualifications and two certified teachers in each school, 3) a principal with certification and S1 degree, 4)
textbooks (Bahasa, Math, IPA, IPS) for all students, 5) one set of IPA teaching aids in each school, 6) 100 
titiles of enrichment books and 10 reference book in each school, 7)teaching hours per week for each 
teacher: 37.5, 8) each teacher does a daily lesson plan and an evaluation program, 9) principal supervises
classroom and provides feedback once a semester to every teacher, and 10) every school implements 
school-based management. 
4. What has DBE done to contribute to the fulfillment of National Standards of Education? 
The eight National Standards of Education include: 1) graduate competence, 2) content, 3) process, 4) 
teachers and administrative staff, 5) facilities and infrastructure, 6) education management, 7) educational 
financing, and 8) educational evaluation.
5. What areas of the standards has DBE made the most contribution?
6. What areas should future programming focus on to continue strengthening achievement of the standards 
and/or institutionalize them?
DBE approaches
7. Which interventions were most effective to improve the quality of teaching and learning in target schools?
8. What evidence is available which illustrates improved teaching and learning processes? How has this evidence 
been gathered?
9. How has DBE affected the roles of principals to support teaching and learning in schools?
10. Did your school receive the classroom reading program? What activities of the program were most useful 
and appreciated by teachers in classrooms? What were the challenges to this program?
26
11. Did your teachers participate in the distance education program? How was the program useful to teachers to 
improve their skills? What were the challenges of this program?
12. How effective is the use of the CRC to improve the quality of the teaching and learning process for the 
teachers in your area? What activities are available at the Centers which improve the quality of teachers? 
Would the addition of activities such as a reading program [including provision of books, training teachers how 
to teach reading activities, etc.] or a distance education program [to up-grade professional competencies or 
academic degrees through access to university programs] add value to the services provided by the CRCs? 
13. Are you aware of any activities offered by Indonesian universities partnered with US universities through 
DBE2 which focused on improving teacher capacities? Which activities? [Interviewer refers to chart below for 
activities.] Which were most effective? 
14. What do you think about the use of university partnerships to improve teacher training and improved 
capacity?
15. What activities would you recommend for future education programming to continue the improvement of the 
teaching-learning process?
27
7. Primary Teachers 
The objective of the interview is to: obtain information from primary teachers on how DBE interventions have 
strengthened their ability to provide quality instruction in the classroom which results in improved student learning 
outcomes. 
1. Please tell us what you know about the DBE project and its objectives. How long have you been involved with 
the DBE at your school?
2. Which DBE activities were most effective to improve your teaching ability? 
Explain why.
3. Which DBE activities had the least effect on your teaching ability? Explain why.
4. Which activities were most effective to improve student learning in your classroom in math, science, and 
language? Which activities had the least effect on improving learning in target schools? Explain why.
5. How useful was the classroom reading program to improve student abilities to read? What were the 
challenges to this program?
6. Was the distance education program useful for teachers to improve their teaching skills? Please explain how it 
helped you. What were the challenges of this program? 
7. Are there noticeable gender differences in program outcomes of students at your school, at the district, and 
province levels? As a result of DBE, what efforts do you make to encourage equal opportunities and equal 
outcomes for male and female students in your classroom and school? 
8. How has DBE assisted the school principal to support teaching and learning in your school?
9. How has the DBE strengthened planning and management at your school? Do you feel your school is a better 
provider of education because of DBE efforts to improve education planning and management? Have you 
personally been involved in the school planning and management process?
10. What activities of the DBE program should be replicated in other schools because they are effective and 
improve the education the students receive? Do you know of any DBE activities that have become official 
education policy by the MOEC or MORA? 
11. What would you say are best practices of the DBE project? What would you say are lessons learned of the 
DBE project? 
12. In your opinion, what new activities in future programming would continue to improve teacher capacity and 
student learning?
13. Do you have any other comments you would like to add about the DBE program? 
 
28
8. School Committees (SC)
The objectives of the interview are togather information: a) about the impact of the DBE program on schools, 
especially on school governance, b) about the most and least effective elements of the DBE, c) about best practices 
and lessons learned about project implementation, and d) gain any suggestions for implementation of future 
projects (PRIORITAS). 
1. As a member of a school committee, what activities have you been involved in at the school?
2. Did you receive any training to carry out your responsibilities? What was the nature of the training and who 
provided it? How was the training useful? Were there any elements of the training that you think should be 
improved?
3. From your perspective as a SC member, what activities within the DBE project proved to be the most 
effective? Why?
 
4. What activities within the DBE appear to have been the least effective? Why?
5. What were the main elements of the DBE approach to support planning and strengthen management? How 
successful was this component of DBE? Please explain.
6. How effective was the effort expended by the DBE to increase the capacity of personnel at the school level? 
Please explain how capacity was improved.
7. Which DBE program elements were most successful and why?
8. Which DBE program elements were less successful and why?
9. What are the best practices (activities that worked well) from the implementation of DBE?
10. What are the lessons learned from the implementation of DBE?
11. What elements of the DBE program should be incorporated into any follow-on program?
12. What recommendations would you make to improve interventions for any future projects? Could you suggest 
new activities that might make future programs more effective?
13. What factors influence the prospects for a program element to become sustainable?
14. What could have been done more effectively by DBE to build better engagement with local government, 
DINAS and Community stakeholders?
29
9. School Principals (MOEC and MORA)
The objectives of the interview are to: a) gain an understanding of the principal’s involvement in DBE and what 
impact DBE interventions have had, both positive and negative, on student learning, school governance, and school 
planning, b) gather opinions and facts about the most and least effective elements of DBE; and c) gather 
information about best practices and lessons learned that can be applied to any future program, especially 
PRIORITAS.
1. Please tell us about you and your school (number of students, teachers, the school committee, number of 
years as a principal at school, etc.).
2. Please explain what type of DBE activities you and your school have participated.
3. From your perspective, what activities within the DBE project proved to be the most effective in your school? 
Why? (Please try to examine all three components of DBE.)
4. What activities within the DBE appear to have had little or no effect? Why?(Please try to examine all three 
components of DBE.)
5. Please explain how capacity of teachers was improved through DBE interventions.
6. How useful is the CRC to improve the teaching-learning process? What suggestions can you make to improve 
the role of the CRC to be a service provider for teacher training for the schools in the area?
7. How effective was the DBE to improve community participation and school governance? Please explain how 
capacity was improved.
8. How could a partnership with a university assist to improve teachers’ capacity? 
9. Has the District made any effort to replicate the DBE program within the District in other sub-districts and 
schools? What has been your role in the replication of DBE best practices and how successful has that been? 
What activities should be replicated?
10. How can DBE or any follow-up program improve communication and coordination with the District (and/or 
Provincial and Central Governments)?
11. What lessons learned or best practices would you highlight for incorporation into USAID’s next program?
12. Are there any additional points or comments that you would like to make to inform USAID, DBE, and the 
development of future programs in basic education?
30
10. Junior Secondary Teachers
The objective of the interview is to obtain information from junior secondary teachers on how DBE interventions 
have improved the quality and relevancy of education for youth through the ‘whole school approach.’
1. Please tell us what you know about the DBE project and its objectives. How long have you been involved with 
the DBE at your school?
2. As you understand it, how effective was the whole school approach to improve education for the students of 
your junior secondary school(s)? Do you feel quality and relevance of the education the student’s received as a 
result of the whole school approach has improved? [Check for teacher’s understanding of quality and 
relevance.]
3. How effective were DBE in-service training activities to improve your teaching ability? Explain why.
4. Which DBE activities had the least effect on your teaching ability? Explain why.[Refer to the accompanying 
chart of activities.]
5. Which activities were most effective to improve student learning in your classroom in math, science, and 
language? 
6. Which activities had the least effect on improving learning in target schools? Explain why.
7. Did principals in your schools receive training on school management? Has their training strengthened their 
support to teaching and learning in your school? What examples can you give that illustrate their increased 
capacity and motivation to provide instructional leadership to the school?
8. Has your school received gender training from the DBE project? As a result of participation in DBE, what 
efforts do you make to encourage equal opportunities and equal outcomes for male and female students in 
your classroom and school? 
9. Have you been able to participate in the in-service training provided for teachers for professional 
development? Which activities did you find most useful personally? 
10. What best practices from the DBE whole school model would you recommend to the Government of 
Indonesia as a way to respond to the needs of the junior secondary education sector? 
11. In your opinion, what new activities in future programming would continue to improve teacher capacity and 
student learning at the junior secondary level? 
12. Do you have additional comments you would like to add about the DBE whole school approach and teaching 
and learning?
31
11. Universities (Module Development Teams, Service Providers, and University Point-of￾Contacts)
The objective of this interview is to obtain information on the perspectives and opinions of university personnel 
who worked with DBE about a) teachers’ development through in-service training activities, b) pre-service teacher 
preparation, and c) university cooperation with U.S universities, provinces and districts, and donors.
1. Please tell us about the involvement of your university with DBE projects/activities. When was the university 
involved in DBE activities? What were your university’s roles in the DBE activities? [Interviewer: please 
reference the List of University Activities below.] Within those activities what were your roles?
List of University Activities (DBE2)
University-accredited teacher training Indonesia/US university partnerships
Curriculum and instructional program 
development
Active Learning for Higher Education (ALFHE)
Distance education pilot Digital library provision 
Study tours/fellowships On-line course development
Education research Educational ICT
Teacher Development
2. What best practices from in-service teacher professional development activities were gained from DBE? 
What lessons were learned? [Interviewer note: ‘Best Practices’ are learning/teaching techniques and methods 
that are ‘best’ in improving the quality and effectiveness of education.] 
3. How can progress made in in-service teacher professional development be institutionalized by schools? Who 
are the most important/best parties (persons) to enhance the institutionalization of these practices? What 
would be their roles? 
4. What additional resources (financial and human) and technical assistance would the university need in order 
to strengthen their own capacity to provide teacher professional development services?
5. What kinds of activities can the university do with their own resources to improve their teacher professional 
development services?
6. What best practices from the Active Learning for Higher Education (ALFHE) initiative can strengthen teacher 
preparation at the university? What were the lessons learned from participation with DBE in this initiative? 
7. How can efforts made in training of active learning methodology at the school level be institutionalized by 
universities? Please explain.
Pre-service Teacher Preparation 
8. What best practices from in-service teacher professional development activities, a major focus of the DBE, 
can strengthen pre-service teacher preparation? What lessons were learned?
Indonesian and U.S. Universities partnerships 
9. Which interventions, if any, from the partnership between Indonesian and U.S. universities, contributed most 
effectively to DBE teacher training initiatives? 
10. How does or can the University Consortium (the KTIPT Working Group) contribute to the improvement 
and continuation of teacher professional development in Indonesia? 
32
Coordination and Sustainability
11. How effective was the working relationship between your university (including the work you did) and the 
DBE? 
12. What role do the universities have in the sustainability of the DBE interventions both to teachers and to pre￾service teacher preparation?
13. What needs to be done to strengthen the relationship between universities and the district education offices 
to enable a continuous process of teacher professional development?
14. How could the professional development relationship between the university and similar future projects be 
improved? Please give suggestions.
15. Are there any additional comments you would like to make, that have not been discussed, on these subjects?
33
12. Junior Secondary School Principals
The objective of the interview is to obtain information from junior secondary school principals on how DBE 
interventions have strengthened their ability to manage schools and improve student learning outcomes. 
1. Please tell us briefly about your work as principal of this junior secondary school. What work takes up most of 
your time in your role as principal? When did you begin here? Were you a principal at another junior 
secondary school or primary school before you came to this school? 
2. Please tell us what you know about the DBE project and its objectives. How were you and your school 
involved in the project? When did this begin?
3. What type of training did you receive through DBE? What skills and knowledge of your own were improved 
as a result of involvement with DBE? What activities helped you most to improve?
4. The second half of the DBE3 project focused on a ‘whole school approach’ to improve the quality and 
relevancy of education for youth. From your perspective, to what extent was this approach to quality and 
relevance successful? Why? 
5. How has the DBE strengthened education planning and management at your school? How have DBE efforts 
made your school a better provider of education by improving the planning and management capacity of the 
people involved in your school (supervisors, school committee, teachers, and parents)? Has the financial 
management of the school improved as a result of these efforts? If yes, please explain. 
6. How effective were the DBE interventions in improving your own teaching ability and those of the teachers in 
your school? 
7. What DBE activities had the most effect on improving student learning and which were the least effective? 
How was student learning measured? 
8. Please explain about your school’s relationship or liaison with the community and parents. Did DBE 
interventions improve this relationship in any way? If yes, how? 
9. In your opinion, did the DBE program adequately contribute to the education of junior secondary students to 
obtain employment in the future? Please explain. How do you know this? [Evidence?] Share any cases/specific 
stories. 
10. What do you think about the teacher certification requirement of the MOEC and how do most teachers at 
your school plan to meet those requirements? 
11. From your perspective, should local universities assist schools by offering in-service professional development 
and teaching qualifications? Has your school been assisted? If yes, how? Please explain. 
12. How can the relationship between junior secondary schools and universities be facilitated to improve the 
services they offer to educators?
13. What activities of the DBE program should be replicated in other junior secondary schools? What new 
activities in future programming would continue to improve teacher capacity and student learning?
14. Is there any other information that you think it is important that we should know that we have not yet 
discussed.
34
13. DINAS and MORA Officials (Focus Group Discussion) 
The objective of this group interview is to obtain information from district education officers in MOEC and MORA 
on how DBE interventions have strengthened their ability to manage schools and improve student learning 
outcomes. 
1. Please tell us what you know about the DBE project and its objectives. How were you and your schools 
involved in the project?
2. What significant changes have you seen in schools as a result of the DBE program? How have DBE efforts 
made your district a better provider of education by improving planning and management capacity of people 
involved in your district or schools (planners, inspectors, supervisors, school committee, teachers, and 
parents)? What skills or knowledge were improved as a result of involvement in DBE? What activities helped 
the district to improve most? 
3. How effective were the DBE interventions to improve teaching ability in the schools? What skills or 
knowledge were improved as a result of involvement in DBE? What activities helped the district to improve 
most? 
4. Did student learning in math, science, and language improve in the district as a result of involvement in the 
DBE activities? Which activities had the most effect on improving student learning and which were least 
effective? How did you measure student learning gains?
5. What do you think about the teacher certification requirement of the MOEC and how do most teachers at 
your school plan to meet these requirements? In your opinion, should local universities assist schools by 
offering in-service professional development and teaching qualifications? How can the relationship between 
districts, schools and universities be facilitated to improve the services they offer to educators?
6. What activities of the DBE program should be replicated in other schools because they are effective and 
improve the planning and management of schools and the education the students receive? What replication of 
the DBE program has occurred in your district and/or what plans do you have to replicate the DBE program? 
How have you been able to assure quality in the replication of programs in the district? 
7. From your perspective, what was the ‘whole school approach’ and how effective was it in improving junior 
secondary education? What good practices can be gained from the whole school approach that will assist the 
GOI to meet the needs of early secondary education throughout the country? 
35
14. Primary Principals (Focus Group Discussion) 
The objective of this group interview is to obtain information from primary principals on how DBE interventions 
have strengthened their ability to manage schools and improve student learning outcomes. 
1. Please tell us what you know about the DBE project and its objectives. How were you and your school 
involved in the project?
2. What significant changes have you had in your school as a result of the DBE program? How have DBE efforts 
made your school a better provider of education by improving planning and management capacity of people 
involved in your school (supervisors, school committee, teachers, and parents)? 
3. How has the DBE program affected your work as a principal? How has the DBE strengthened education 
planning and management at your school? How effective were the DBE interventions to improve your own 
teaching ability or those of the teachers in your school? What skills or knowledge did you improve as a result 
of involvement in DBE? What activities helped you the most to improve? What challenges have you faced in 
implementing DBE components?
4. Did student learning in math, science, and language improve as a result of involvement in the DBE activities? 
Which activities had the most effect on improving student learning and which were least effective? How did 
you measure student learning gains?
5. What do you think about the teacher certification requirement of the MOEC and how do most teachers at 
your school plan to meet these requirements? In your opinion, should local universities assist schools by 
offering in-service professional development and teaching qualifications? How can the relationship between 
schools and universities be facilitated to improve the services they offer to educators?
6. What activities of the DBE program should be replicated in other schools because they are effective and 
improve the education the students receive? What new activities in future programming would continue to 
improve teacher capacity and student learning? 
36
15. Primary Teachers (Focus Group Discussion) 
The objective of the group interview is to obtain information from primary teachers on how DBE interventions 
have strengthened their ability to provide quality instruction in the classroom which results in improved student 
learning outcomes. 
1. Please tell us what you know about the DBE project and its objectives. How were you and your school 
involved in the project?
2. How effective were the DBE interventions to improve your own teaching ability? What skills or knowledge 
did you improve as a result of involvement in DBE? What activities helped you the most to improve? 
3. Did student learning in math, science, and language improve as a result of involvement in the DBE activities? 
Which activities had the most effect on improving student learning and which were least effective? How did 
you measure student learning gains?
4. How has the DBE strengthened education planning and management at your school? How haveDBE efforts 
made your school a better provider of education by improving planning and management capacity of people 
involved in your school [for example, the principal, supervisors, school committee, education boards, and 
parents] ? Have you personally been involved in the school planning and management process?
5. What do you think about the teacher certification requirement of the MOEC and how do you plan to meet 
these requirements? In your opinion, should local universities assist schools by offering in-service professional 
development? How can the relationship between schools and universities be facilitated to improve the services
they offer to educators?
6. What activities of the DBE program should be replicated in other schools because they are effective and 
improve the education the students receive? What new activities in future programming would continue to 
improve teacher capacity and student learning? 
 
37
16. Junior Secondary School Principals (Focus Group Discussion)
The objectives of the interview are to obtain information from junior secondary school principals on how DBE 
interventions have strengthened their ability to manage schools and improve student learning outcomes. 
1. Please tell us briefly about your work as principal of this junior secondary school. What work takes up most of 
your time in your role as principal? When did you begin here? Were you a principal at another junior 
secondary school or primary school before you came to this school? 
2. Please tell us what you know about the DBE project and its objectives. How were you and your school 
involved in the project? When did this begin?
3. What type of training did you receive through DBE? What skills and knowledge of your own were improved 
as a result of involvement with DBE? What activities helped you most to improve?
4. The second half of the DBE3 project focused on a ‘whole school approach’ to improve the quality and 
relevancy of education for youth. From your perspective, to what extent was this approach to quality and 
relevance successful? Why? [Interviewer Note: Please use rating scale as a visual aid if appropriate].
5. How has the DBE strengthened education planning and management at your school? How have DBE efforts 
made your school a better provider of education by improving the planning and management capacity of the 
people involved in your school (supervisors, school committee, teachers, and parents)? Has the financial 
management of the school improved as a result of these efforts? If yes, please explain. 
6. How effective were the DBE interventions in improving your own teaching ability and those of the teachers in 
your school? 
7. What DBE activities had the most effect on improving student learning and which were the least effective? 
How was student learning measured? 
8. Please explain about your school’s relationship or liaison with the community and parents. Did DBE 
interventions improve this relationship in any way? If yes, how? 
9. In your opinion, did the DBE program adequately contribute to the education of junior secondary students’ to 
obtain employment in the future? Please explain. How do you know this? [What evidence?] Share any 
cases/specific stories. 
10. What do you think about the teacher certification requirement of the MOEC and how do most teachers at 
your school plan to meet those requirements? 
11. From your perspective, should local universities assist schools by offering in-service professional development 
and teaching qualifications? Has your school been assisted? If yes, how? Please explain. 
12. How can the relationship between junior secondary schools and universities be facilitated to improve the 
services they offer to educators?
13. What activities of the DBE program should be replicated in other junior secondary schools? What new 
activities in future programming would continue to improve teacher capacity and student learning?
14. Is there any other information that you think it is important that we should know that we have not yet 
discussed.
38
17. Universities (Module Development Team, Service Provider, and University Point-of￾Contact) (Focus Group Discussion) 
The objective of this interview is to obtain information on the perspectives and opinions of university personnel 
who worked with DBE, about a) teachers’ development through in-service training activities, b) pre-service teacher 
preparation, and c) university cooperation with U.S universities, provinces and districts, and donors. 
1. Please tell us about the involvement of your university with DBE projects/activities. When was the university 
involved in DBE activities? What were your university’s roles in the DBE activities? [Interviewer: please note 
the List of University Activities below.] Within those activities what were your roles?
List of University Activities (DBE2)
University-accredited teacher training Indonesia/US university partnerships
Curriculum and instructional program 
development
Active Learning for Higher Education (ALFHE)
Distance education pilot Digital library provision 
Study tours/fellowships On-line course development
Education research Educational ICT
Teacher Development
2. What best practices from in-service teacher professional development activities were gained from DBE? 
What lessons were learned? [Interviewer Note: “Best Practices” are learning/teaching techniques and 
methods that are “best” in improving the quality and effectiveness of education.]
3. What kinds of activities can the university do with their own resources to improve their teacher professional 
development services?
Pre-service Teacher Preparation 
4. What best practices from in-service teacher professional development activities gained from university 
participation with DBE can strengthen pre-service teacher preparation? What lessons were learned?
Indonesian and U.S. Universities Partnerships
5. Which interventions, if any, from Indonesian universities twinned with U.S. universities contributed most 
effectively to DBE teacher training initiatives? 
6. How does or can the University Consortium (the KTIPT Working Group) contribute to the improvement 
and continuation of teacher professional development in Indonesia? 
Coordination and Sustainability
7. What role do the universities have in the sustainability of the DBE interventions both to teachers and to pre￾service teacher preparation?
8. How effective was the working relationship between your university (including the work you did) and the 
DBE? What needs to be done to strengthen the relationship between universities and the district education 
offices to enable an on-going process of teacher professional development?
9. Are there any additional comments you would like to make, that have not been discussed, on these subjects?
39
Annex 6: Result of Teacher Surveys
ALL PROVINCES PRIMARY TEACHER SURVEY TALLY
General Information
Grades Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
1 1 4.16% 5 6 14.28% 4 6 18.18% 1 13 13.13% 4
2 4 16.66% 2 2 4.76% 6 6 18.18% 1 12 12.12% 6
3 4 16.66% 2 3 7.14% 5 6 18.18% 1 13 13.13% 4
4 9 37.50% 1 9 21.43% 2 5 15.15% 4 23 23.23% 1
5 4 16.66% 2 8 19.05% 3 5 15.15% 4 17 17.17% 2
6 1 4.16% 5 10 23.81% 1 4 12.12% 5 15 15.15% 3
Tenure
1 - 2 Years 3 12.50% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.03% 4
3 - 4 Years 1 4.16& 4 6 14.28% 3 1 3.03% 3 8 8.08% 3
5 - 10 Years 7 29.16% 2 11 26.19% 2 10 30.30% 2 28 28.28% 2
> 10 Years 9 37.50% 1 17 40.48% 1 17 51.51% 1 43 43.43% 1
Highest Degree
SMA 2 8.33% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.02% 4
Diploma 5 20.83% 2 5 11.90% 2 8 24.24% 2 18 18.18% 2
S1 17 70.83% 1 29 69.05% 1 20 60.60% 1 66 66.67% 1
S2 0 0% 0 2 4.76% 3 1 3.03% 3 3 3.03% 3
Certification
Yes 12 50% 1 17 40.48% 2 19 57.57% 1 48 48.48% 1
No 9 37.50% 2 24 57.14% 1 14 42.42% 2 47 47.47% 2
Subject Matter
Islam / Arabic 2 8.33% 2 1 2.38% 2 1 3.03% 2 4 4.04% 2
Maths 1 4.16% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.01% 3
Science 1 4.16% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.01% 3
Classroom 13 54.16% 1 14 33.33% 1 8 24.24% 1 35 35.35% 1
Art 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 2 0 0 0 1 1.01% 3
Thematic 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 2 0 0 0 1 1.01% 3
Civics 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 2 0 0 0 1 1.01% 3
ICT 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 1 3.03% 2 1 1.01% 3
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 33) ALL PROVINCES (n = 99)
40
Q1: HOW MANY YEARS DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE DBE PROGRAMS?
1. # of Years DBE Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
1 - 3 Years 9 37.50% 2 13 30.95% 2 10 30.30% 2 32 32.32% 2
4 - 6 Years 15 62.50% 1 26 61.90% 1 23 69.69% 1 64 64.64% 1
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 33) ALL PROVINCES (n = 99)
Q2: WHICH DBE ACTIVITIES DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN?
2. Participation Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Teacher Training in ICT 21 87.50% 2 36 85.71% 2 26 78.78% 3 83 83.83% 3
Active Learning with ICT 19 79.16% 4 35 83.33% 3 23 69.69% 4 77 77.78% 4
Active Learning Training 22 91.66% 1 41 97.62% 1 29 87.87% 1 92 92.92% 1
Subject Training 20 80.33% 3 35 83.33% 3 29 87.87% 1 84 84.84% 2
ICT Master Teacher Training 13 54.16% 8 9 21.43% 10 7 21.21% 9 29 29.29% 10
Mentoring / Coaching 17 70.83% 5 35 83.33% 3 7 21.21% 9 59 59.59% 5
Training & Resources @ CRCs 8 33.33% 9 17 40.48% 7 10 30.30% 7 35 35.35% 8
Professional Development T. 6 25% 10 12 28.57% 9 14 42.42% 6 32 32.32% 9
Accredited University T. 0 0 0 6 14.28% 11 2 6.06% 11 8 8.08 11
Reading Program: Books 15 62.50% 6 21 50.00% 6 19 57.57% 5 55 55.55% 6
Teacher Training: Reading 14 58.33% 7 15 35.71% 8 8 24.24% 8 37 37.37% 7
Leadership Training 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
School Committee Training 0 0.00% 0 2 4.76% 12 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
School Management Training 0 0.00% 0 2 4.76% 12 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 33) ALL PROVINCES (n = 99)
41
Q3: WHICH DBE ACTIVITIES WERE MOST EFFECTIVE TO IMPROVE YOUR INSTRUCTIONAL SKILLS IN THE CLASSROOM?
3. Teaching Effectiveness Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Teacher Training in ICT 15 62.50% 4 27 64.28% 4 20 60.60% 4 62 62.62% 4
Active Learning with ICT 19 79.16% 3 32 76.19% 2 24 72.72% 3 75 75.75% 3
Active Learning Training 21 87.50% 2 37 88.09% 1 26 78.79% 2 84 84.84% 1
Subject Training 22 91.66% 1 32 76.19% 2 27 81.81% 1 81 81.81% 2
ICT Master Teacher Training 9 37.50% 6 9 21.43% 7 9 27.27% 7 27 27.27% 7
Mentoring / Coaching 14 58.33% 5 22 52.38% 5 1 3.03% 11 37 37.37% 6
Training & Resources @ CRCs 1 4.16% 10 6 14.28% 10 9 27.27% 7 16 16.16% 10
Professional Development T. 2 8.33% 9 8 19.05% 8 11 33.33% 6 21 21.21% 9
Accredited University T. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6.06% 10 2 2.02% 11
Reading Program: Books 7 29.16% 7 20 47.62% 6 13 39.39% 5 40 40.40% 5
Teacher Training: Reading 6 25% 8 8 19.05% 8 9 27.27% 7 23 23.23% 8
Leadership Training 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
School Committee Training 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 11 0 0 0 1 1.01% 12
School Management Training 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 11 0 0 0 1 1.01% 12
Child psychology 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 1 3.03% 11 1 1.01% 12
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 33) ALL PROVINCES (n = 99)
42
Q4: WHICH OF YOUR TEACHING SKILLS IMPROVED THE MOST?
4. Teaching Improvement Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Providing guidance feedback 7 29.16% 5 12 28.57% 7 15 45.45% 4 34 34.34% 5
Classroom management 13 54.16% 2 26 61.90% 1 17 51.51% 3 56 56.56% 1
Promoting student reflection 8 33.33% 4 20 47.62% 2 20 60.60% 1 48 48.48% 3
Question/Discussion/Voice 17 70.83% 1 16 38.09% 4 19 57.57% 2 52 52.52% 2
Collaborative Learning 12 50% 3 17 40.48% 3 9 27.27% 5 38 38.38% 4
Material use & development 6 25% 6 16 38.09% 4 7 21.21% 6 29 29.29% 6
Lesson Planning 6 25% 6 16 38.09% 4 3 9.09% 7 25 25.25% 7
Multiple forms of assessment 2 8.33% 8 3 7.14% 8 3 9.09% 7 8 8.08% 8
Instructional resources use 2 8.33% 8 0 0 0 2 6.06% 10 4 4.04% 9
Learner-centered instruction 1 4.16% 10 0 0 0 3 9.09% 7 4 4.04% 9
Multiple technology use 0 0 0 2 4.76% 9 2 6.06% 10 4 4.04% 9
Cooperating with community 0 0 0 1 2.38% 10 0 0 0 1 1.01% 12
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 33) ALL PROVINCES (n = 99)
Q5: HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THE DBE INTERVENTIONS IN IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING IN MATH, SCIENCE AND LANGUAGE?
5. Improved Student Learning Ave. % Rank Ave. % Rank Ave. % Rank Ave % Rank
Maths Improvement 7.41 74.11% 3 6.05 60.50% 3 7.15 71.51% 3 6.87 68.70% 3
Science Improvement 8.11 81.11% 1 7.21 72.10% 2 7.63 76.36% 1 7.65 76.50% 2
Language Improvement 8 80.00% 2 7.38 73.80% 1 7.61 76.13% 2 7.66 76.63% 1
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 33) ALL PROVINCES (n = 99)
43
Q6: WHAT DBE ACTIVITIES WERE THE MOST EFFECTIVE TO IMPROVE STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN ANY SUBJECT?
6. Learning Effectiveness Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Teacher Training in ICT 2 8.33% 4 1 2.38% 12 1 3.03% 9 4 4.04% 10
Active Learning with ICT 4 16.66% 2 10 23.81% 1 4 12.12% 5 18 18.18% 2
Active Learning Training 12 50% 1 6 14.28% 5 11 33.33% 1 29 29.29% 1
Subject Training 4 16.66% 2 4 9.52% 9 2 6.06% 7 10 10.10% 7
ICT Master Teacher Training 0 0 0 1 2.38% 12 0 0 0 1 1.01% 14
Mentoring / Coaching 0 0 0 1 2.38% 12 0 0 0 1 1.01% 14
Training & Resources @ CRCs 0 0 0 1 2.38% 12 0 0 0 1 1.01% 14
Professional Development T. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6.06% 7 2 2.02% 12
Accredited University T. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
Reading Program: Books 0 0 0 1 2.38% 12 0 0 0 1 1.01% 14
Teacher Training: Reading 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
Providing guidance feedback 1 4.16% 7 6 14.28% 5 5 15.15% 3 12 12.12% 5
Classroom management 0 0 0 2 4.76% 10 3 9.09% 6 5 5.05% 10
Promoting student reflection 0 0 0 8 19.05% 3 5 15.15% 3 13 13.13% 4
Question/Discussion/Voice 1 4.16% 7 8 19.05% 3 8 24.24% 2 17 17.17% 3
Collaborative Learning 2 8.33% 4 9 21.43% 2 1 3.03% 9 12 12.12% 5
Material use & development 0 0 0 5 11.90% 8 1 3.03% 9 6 6.06% 9
Lesson Planning 2 8.33% 4 6 14.28% 5 0 0 0 8 8.08% 8
Multiple forms of assessment 0 0 0 2 4.76% 10 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
Instructional resources use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
Learner-centered instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
Multiple technology use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
School management 0 0 0 1 2.38% 12 0 0 0 1 1.01% 14
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 33) ALL PROVINCES (n = 99)
44
Q7: WHAT ACTIVITIES OF THE DBE PROGRAMS SHOULD BE REPLICATED IN OTHER SCHOOLS?
7. Best to Replicate Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Teacher Training in ICT 2 8.33% 5 5 11.90% 5 5 15.15% 2 12 12.12% 5
Active Learning with ICT 5 20.83% 3 5 11.90% 5 5 15.15% 2 15 15.15% 2
Active Learning Training 7 29.16% 2 12 28.57% 1 5 15.15% 2 24 24.24% 1
Subject Training 8 33.33% 1 2 4.76% 15 3 9.09% 9 13 13.13% 3
ICT Master Teacher Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.03% 14 1 1.01% 17
Mentoring / Coaching 0 0 0 3 7.14% 11 1 3.03% 14 4 4.04% 14
Training & Resources @ CRCs 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12.12% 6 4 4.04% 14
Professional Development T. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.03% 14 1 1.01% 17
Accredited University T. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
Reading Program: Books 0 0 0 4 9.52% 9 2 6.06% 11 6 6.06% 11
Teacher Training: Reading 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
Providing guidance feedback 0 0 0 3 7.14% 11 2 6.06% 11 5 5.05% 12
Classroom management 3 12.50% 4 4 9.52% 9 6 18.18% 1 13 13.13% 3
Promoting student reflection 1 4.16% 7 5 11.90% 5 3 9.09% 9 9 9.09% 9
Question/Discussion/Voice 2 8.33% 5 6 14.28% 2 2 6.06% 11 10 10.10% 6
Collaborative Learning 0 0 0 6 14.28% 2 4 12.12% 6 10 10.10% 6
Material use & development 0 0 0 3 7.14% 11 5 15.15% 2 8 8.08% 10
Lesson Planning 0 0 0 5 11.90% 5 0 0 0 5 5.05% 12
Multiple forms of assessment 0 0 0 3 7.14% 11 0 0 0 3 3.03% 16
Instructional resources use 1 4.16% 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.01% 17
Learner-centered instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
Multiple technology use 0 0 0 6 14.28% 2 4 12.12% 6 10 10.10% 6
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 33) ALL PROVINCES (n = 99)
45
Q8: WHAT NEW ACTIVITIES IN FUTURE PROGRAMMING WOULD IMPROVE TEACHER CAPACITY & STUDENT LEARNING?
8. Future Activities Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
TT w/ ICT 12 50.00% 1 6 14.28% 3 7 21.21% 1 25 25.25% 1
ICT MTT training 1 4.16% 4 0 0 0 2 6.06% 7 3 3.03% 9
Add school facilities as needed 1 4.16% 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.01% 21
Integrated & continuous trainings with 
room for teacher sharing 1 4.16% 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.01% 21
Continuous AL training 1 4.16% 4 0 0 0 1 3.03% 10 2 2.02% 12
Cheap teaching aids 1 4.16% 4 3 7.14% 5 1 3.03% 10 5 5.05% 6
AL & TT w/ ICT 1 4.16% 4 1 2.38% 12 5 15.15% 2 7 7.07% 4
TT as motivator 1 4.16% 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.01% 21
AL w/ ICT for all subjects 2 8.33% 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
Use cooperative learning (Jigsaw & 
Investigative) 1 4.16% 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.01% 21
Mentoring training 2 8.33% 2 0 0 0 1 3.03% 10 3 3.03% 9
AL w/ ICT 1 4.16% 4 1 2.38% 12 4 12.12% 3 6 6.06% 5
Professional Development Training 0 0.00% 0 10 23.81% 1 1 3.03% 11 11.11% 2
Accredited University Training 0 0.00% 0 2 4.76% 6 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
Classroom management 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 12 0 0 0 1 1.01% 21
School-based management 0 0.00% 0 2 4.76% 6 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
Finance management 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 12 0 0 0 1 1.01% 21
Integrate civics w/ AL 0 0.00% 0 7 16.67% 2 3 9.09% 5 10 10.10% 3
Learning through environment 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 12 0 0 0 1 1.01% 21
Question/Discussion/Voice 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 12 1 3.03% 10 2 2.02% 12
Provide more books for children 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 12 0 0 0 1 1.01% 21
Subject matter strengthening 0 0.00% 0 4 9.52% 4 1 3.03% 10 5 5.05% 6
Transfer good teachers to other schools 0 0.00% 0 2 4.76% 6 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
Organise quality teacher working group 0 0.00% 0 2 4.76% 6 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
Student's work from used materials 0 0.00% 0 2 4.76% 6 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
Effective trainings as needed by teachers 0 0.00% 0 2 4.76% 6 0 0 0 2 2.02% 12
DBE should facilitate research for teacher 0 0.00% 0 1 2.38% 12 2 6.06% 7 1 1.01% 21
Leadership training 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 1 3.03% 10 1 1.01% 21
Multiple technology use 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 4 12.12% 3 4 4.04% 8
Classroom Action Research 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 3 9.09% 5 3 3.03% 9
Math & science kit training 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 2 6.06% 7 2 2.02% 12
Child psychology training 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 1 3.03% 10 1 1.01% 21
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 33) ALL PROVINCES (n = 99)
46
Q9: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT DBE AND TEACHING & LEARNING?
9. Remarks Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
DBE assignments are time & energy consuming 1 4.16% 2 0 0 0 1 1.51% 5
Expand AL w/ ICT 1 4.16% 2 0 0 0 1 1.51% 5
Teachers need to apply DBE in class 1 4.16% 2 0 0 0 1 1.51% 5
TT w/ ICT to make AL w/ ICT 1 4.16% 2 0 0 0 1 1.51% 5
Modern learning media 1 4.16% 2 5 11.90% 1 6 9.09% 2
DBE is good 4 33.33% 1 4 9.52% 2 8 12.12% 1
Non-civil teachers should improve performance 1 4.16% 2 0 0 0 1 1.51% 5
Spread teaching aids to other DBE schools besides main schl 0 0 0 2 4.76% 3 2 3.03% 3
DBE funds programs proposed by schools 0 0 0 1 2.38% 5 1 1.51% 5
DBE should increase professional teacher trainings 0 0 0 1 2.38% 5 1 1.51% 5
Classroom management 0 0 0 2 4.76% 3 2 3.03% 3
School-based management 0 0 0 1 2.38% 5 1 1.51% 5
Maintain & improve education 0 0 0 1 2.38% 5 1 1.51% 5
LEGEND:
AL = Active Learning
ICT = Information & Communication Technology
MTT = Master Teacher Trainer
CRC = Cluster Resource Center
TT = Teacher Training
CENTRAL JAVA (n = 24) SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 42) ALL PROVINCES (n = 66)
47
Explanation of Primary Teacher Survey
General Information
• Of 99 state primary & madrasah teacher respondents in Central Java, South Sulawesi and North 
Sumatera, 23 people (23.23%) were 4th grade teachers, 17 people (17.17%) were 5th grade 
teachers and 15 people (15.15%) were 6th grade teachers. Six teachers (6.06%) did not answer 
the question.
• 43 people (43.43%) had tenure of more than 10 years and 28 people (28.28%) had tenure of 5 
to 10 years. Four teachers (16.66%) did not answer the question.
• 66 people (66.67%) had Bachelors degree and 18 people (18.18%) had Diplomas. Ten people 
(10.10%) did not answer the question.
• 48 people (48.48%) were certified and 47 people (47.47%) people were not certified. Four 
teachers (4.04%) did not answer.
• 35 people (35.35%) were classroom teachers and 4 people (4.04%) were religion teachers. Fifty￾four teachers (54.54%) did not answer the question.
Q1: How many years did you participate in the DBE programs?
Of the 99 teacher respondents, 64 people (64.64%) were involved in DBE for 4 to 6 years and 32 
people (32.32%) were involved for 1 to 3 years. Three teachers (3.03%) did not answer the question.
Q2: Which DBE activities did you participate in?
Of the 99 teacher respondents, 92 people (92.92%) participated in AL Training, 84 people (84.84%) 
participated in Subject Matter Training, 83 people (83.83%) participated in TT with ICT, 77 people 
(77.78%) participated in AL with ICT, 59 people (59.59%) participated in Mentoring / Coaching Training 
and 55 people (55.55%) participated in Reading Program with Books in Classroom. No teachers 
participated in Leadership Training.
Q3: Which DBE activities were most effective to improve your instructional skills in the classroom?
Of the 99 teacher respondents, 84 people (84.84%) said AL Training, 81 people (81.81%) said Subject 
Training, 75 people (75.75%) said AL with ICT and 62 people (62.62%) said TT with ICT. No teachers 
said Leadership Training was effective for teaching.
Q4: Which of your teaching skills improved the most?
Of the 99 teacher respondents, 56 people (56.56%) said Classroom Management and 52 people 
(52.52%) said the Question, Discussion and Student Voice.
Q5: How effective were the DBE interventions in improving student learning in Math, Science and 
Language?
48
From an average scale of 1 to 10, 94 teachers feel Math Learning improved 68.70%, 96 teachers feel 
Science Learning improved 76.50%, and 92 teachers feel Language Learning improved 76.63%.
Four (4) teachers did not answer for Math, 3 teachers did not answer for Science and 6 teachers did not 
answer for Language questions.
Q6: What DBE activities were most effective to improve student performance in any subject?
Of the 99 teacher respondents, 29 people (29.29%) said AL Training, 18 people (18.18%) said AL with 
ICT, 17 people (17.17%) said Question, Discussion & Student Voice and 13 people (13.13%) said 
Promoting Student Reflection. No teacher said Accredited University Training, TT for Reading, Use of 
Instructional Resources, Learner-centered Instruction and Use of Multiple Technology were effective for 
student learning.
Q7: What activities of the DBE programs should be replicated in other schools?
Of the 99 teacher respondents, 24 people (24.24%) said AL Training, 15 people (15.15%) said AL with 
ICT, 13 people (13.13%) said Subject Training, 13 people (13.13%) said Classroom Management and 12 
people (12.12%) said TT in ICT. No teacher said Accredited University Training, TT for Reading and
Learner-centered Instruction should be replicated. 
Q8: What new activities in future programming would improve teacher capacity and student learning?
Of the 99 teacher respondents, 25 people (25.25%) said "TT with ICT", 11 people (11.11%) said 
"Professional Development Training", 10 people (10.10%) said "Integrate civics with AL", 7 people 
(7.07%) said "AL & TT with ICT" and 6 people (6.06%) said "AL with ICT". 
Q9: Any other comments about DBE and teaching & learning?
Of the 66 teacher respondents (Central Java & South Sulawesi), 8 people (12.12%) said "DBE is good" 
and 6 people (9.09%) said "(provide) modern learning media [parentheses added]". Thirty-nine (59.09%) 
teachers did not leave any remarks.
49
ALL PROVINCES JUNIOR SECONDARY TEACHER SURVEY TALLY
General Information
Grades Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
VII 11 30.55% 2 13 30.23% 3 24 30.38% 3
VIII 11 30.55% 2 15 34.88% 1 26 32.91% 2
IX 14 38.89% 1 14 32.56% 2 28 35.44% 1
Tenure
1 - 2 Years 0 0 0 2 4.65% 3 2 2.53% 4
3 - 4 Years 2 5.56% 3 1 2.32% 4 3 3.79% 3
5 - 10 Years 8 22.22% 2 12 27.91% 2 20 25.32% 2
> 10 Years 16 44.44% 1 23 53.48% 1 39 49.37% 1
Highest Degree
SMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
Diploma 0 0.00% 0 2 4.65% 2 2 2.53% 3
S1 28 77.78% 1 37 86.05% 1 65 82.28% 1
S2 4 11.11% 2 2 4.65% 2 6 7.59% 2
Certification
Yes 32 88.89% 1 32 74.42% 1 64 81.01% 1
No 3 8.33% 2 10 23.26% 2 13 16.46% 2
Subject Matter
Islam / Arabic 0 0.00% 0 1 2.32% 5 1 1.27% 6
Maths 7 19.44% 2 8 18.60% 2 15 18.99% 3
Science 8 22.22% 1 10 23.26% 1 18 22.78% 1
Social Science 6 16.67% 5 6 13.95% 4 12 15.19% 5
English 7 19.44% 2 10 23.26% 1 17 21.52% 2
Indonesian 7 19.44% 2 7 16.28% 3 14 17.72% 4
Local language 1 2.78% 6 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 6
Civics 0 0.00% 0 1 2.32% 5 1 1.27% 6
SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 36) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 43) ALL PROVINCES (n = 79)
50
Q1: HOW MANY YEARS DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE DBE PROGRAMS?
1. # of Years DBE Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
1 - 3 Years 24 66.67% 1 29 67.44% 1 53 67.09% 1
4 - 6 Years 12 33.33% 2 13 30.23% 2 25 31.65% 2
SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 36) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 43) ALL PROVINCES (n = 79)
Q2: WHICH DBE ACTIVITIES DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN?
2. Participation
Life Skills Program (05-09) Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Better Teaching & Learning 1 20 55.56% 5 18 41.86% 3 38 48.10% 4
Integrate Life Skills Edu. To Classroom 20 55.56% 5 14 32.56% 5 34 43.04% 5
Civics Modules 2 5.56% 12 4 9.30% 11 6 7.59% 12
English Modules 6 16.67% 8 4 9.30% 11 10 12.66% 10
Mathematics Modules 5 13.89% 10 5 11.63% 10 10 12.66% 10
ICT for Life Skills Education 18 50.00% 7 10 23.26% 6 28 35.44% 7
Non-Curricular Toolkit 6 16.67% 8 9 20.93% 8 15 18.99% 8
School Retention Toolkit 1 2.78% 0 2 4.65% 13 3 3.79% 13
Whole School Appr. (09 - 11)
Better Teaching & Learning 2 25 69.44% 2 35 81.39% 1 60 75.95% 1
Better Teaching & Learning 3 27 75.00% 1 31 72.09% 2 58 73.42% 2
Better Teaching & Learning 4 22 61.11% 3 10 23.26% 6 32 40.51% 6
ICT in Better Teaching & Learning 22 61.11% 3 17 39.53% 4 39 49.37% 3
Capacity of School Principal & Supervisor 5 13.89% 10 7 16.28% 9 12 15.19% 9
Social Science Modules 2 5.56% 12 0 0 0 2 2.53% 15
Science Modules 2 5.56% 12 0 0 0 2 2.53% 15
Indonesian Modules 2 5.56% 12 1 2.32% 14 3 3.79% 13
Peer mediation 0 0.00% 0 1 2.32% 14 1 1.27% 17
SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 36) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 43) ALL PROVINCES (n = 79)
51
Q3: WHICH DBE ACTIVITIES WERE MOST EFFECTIVE TO IMPROVE YOUR INSTRUCTIONAL SKILLS IN THE CLASSROOM?
3. Teaching Effectiveness
Life Skills Program (05 - 09) Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Better Teaching & Learning 1 18 50.00% 3 10 23.26% 6 28 35.44% 4
Integrate Life Skills Edu. To Classroom 13 36.11% 6 13 30.23% 3 26 32.91% 5
Civics Modules 1 2.78% 13 1 2.32% 11 2 2.53% 13
English Modules 6 16.67% 8 3 6.98% 8 9 11.39% 8
Mathematics Modules 4 11.11% 11 3 6.98% 8 7 8.86% 9
ICT for Life Skills Education 14 38.89% 5 11 25.58% 5 25 31.65% 6
Non-Curricular Toolkit 5 13.89% 9 2 4.65% 10 7 8.86% 9
School Retention Toolkit 2 5.56% 12 1 2.32% 11 3 3.78% 12
Whole School Appr. (09 - 11)
Better Teaching & Learning 2 17 47.22% 4 24 55.81% 1 41 51.89% 1
Better Teaching & Learning 3 19 52.78% 2 20 46.51% 2 39 49.37% 2
Better Teaching & Learning 4 12 33.33% 7 6 13.95% 7 18 22.78% 7
ICT in Better Teaching & Learning 21 58.33% 1 12 27.91% 4 33 41.77% 3
Capacity of School Principal & Supervisor 5 13.89% 9 0 0.00% 0 5 6.33% 11
Science Modules 1 2.78% 13 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14
SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 36) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 43) ALL PROVINCES (n = 79)
52
Q4: WHICH OF YOUR TEACHING SKILLS IMPROVED THE MOST?
4. Teaching Improvement Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Providing guidance feedback 19 52.78% 2 14 32.56% 5 33 41.77% 4
Classroom management 11 30.55% 5 15 34.88% 4 26 32.91% 5
Collaborative Learning 13 36.11% 4 23 53.48% 1 36 45.57% 3
Material use & development 19 52.78% 2 22 51.16% 2 41 51.90% 1
Lesson Planning 20 55.56% 1 21 48.84% 3 41 51.90% 1
Multiple forms of assessment 6 16.67% 7 8 18.60% 7 14 17.72% 7
Instructional resources use 5 13.89% 8 3 6.98% 9 8 10.13% 9
Learner-centered instruction 5 13.89% 8 11 25.58% 6 16 20.25% 6
Using instructional technology 8 22.22% 6 5 11.63% 8 13 16.46% 8
Showcasing 0 0.00% 0 1 2.32% 10 1 1.27% 10
SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 36) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 43) ALL PROVINCES (n = 79)
Q5: HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THE DBE INTERVENTIONS IN IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING IN MATH, SCIENCE AND LANGUAGE?
5. Improved Student Learning Ave. % Rank Ave. % Rank Ave % Rank
Maths Improvement 6.36 63.63% 3 5.75 57.50% 2 6.05 60.55% 3
Science Improvement 7.2 72.00% 1 6.7 67.00% 1 6.95 69.50% 1
Language Improvement 7 70.00% 2 5.7 57.00% 3 6.35 63.50% 2
SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 36) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 43) ALL PROVINCES (n = 79)
53
Q6: WHAT DBE ACTIVITIES WERE THE MOST EFFECTIVE TO IMPROVE STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN ANY SUBJECT?
6. Learning Effectiveness Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Better Teaching & Learning 1 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0
Integrate Life Skills Edu. To Classroom 4 11.11% 5 0 0.00% 0 4 5.06% 10
Civics Modules 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0
English Modules 1 2.78% 11 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 13
Mathematics Modules 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
ICT for Life Skills Education 1 2.78% 11 0 0 0 1 1.27% 13
Non-Curricular Toolkit 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
School Retention Toolkit 1 2.78% 11 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 13
Better Teaching & Learning 2 6 16.67% 4 5 11.63% 3 11 13.92% 5
Better Teaching & Learning 3 8 22.22% 1 5 11.63% 3 13 16.46% 2
Better Teaching & Learning 4 4 11.11% 5 1 2.32% 10 5 6.33% 7
ICT in Better Teaching & Learning 3 8.33% 8 2 4.65% 7 5 6.33% 7
Capacity of School Principal & Supervisor 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0
Providing guidance & feedback 8 22.22% 1 4 9.30% 5 12 15.19% 3
Classroom management 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0
Collaborative Learning 7 19.44% 3 17 39.53% 1 24 30.38% 1
Material use & development 2 5.56% 10 3 6.98% 6 5 6.33% 7
Lesson Planning 4 11.11% 5 2 4.65% 7 6 7.59% 6
Multiple forms of assessment 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0
Instructional resources use 0 0 0 2 4.65% 7 2 2.53% 12
Learner-centered instruction 0 0 0 12 27.91% 2 12 15.19% 3
Using instructional technology 3 8.33% 8 0 0 0 3 3.78% 11
SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 36) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 43) ALL PROVINCES (n = 79)
54
Q7: WHAT ACTIVITIES OF THE DBE PROGRAMS SHOULD BE REPLICATED IN OTHER SCHOOLS?
7. Best to Replicate Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank
Better Teaching & Learning 1 2 5.56% 15 0 0.00% 0 2 2.53% 16
Integrate Life Skills Edu. To Classroom 2 5.56% 15 0 0.00% 0 2 2.53% 16
Civics Modules 2 5.56% 15 0 0.00% 0 2 2.53% 16
English Modules 2 5.56% 15 0 0.00% 0 2 2.53% 16
Mathematics Modules 3 8.33% 12 0 0.00% 0 3 3.78% 13
ICT for Life Skills Education 2 5.56% 15 0 0.00% 0 2 2.53% 16
Non-Curricular Toolkit 2 5.56% 15 1 2.32% 12 3 3.78% 13
School Retention Toolkit 2 5.56% 15 0 0.00% 0 2 2.53% 16
Better Teaching & Learning 2 4 11.11% 10 9 20.93% 3 13 16.46% 6
Better Teaching & Learning 3 5 13.89% 6 10 23.26% 2 15 18.99% 4
Better Teaching & Learning 4 3 8.33% 12 2 4.65% 10 6 7.59% 11
ICT in Better Teaching & Learning 6 16.67% 4 2 4.65% 10 8 10.13% 9
Capacity of School Principal & Supervisor 2 5.56% 15 0 0.00% 0 2 2.53% 16
Providing guidance & feedback 6 16.67% 4 3 6.98% 8 9 11.39% 8
Classroom management 8 22.22% 1 7 16.28% 7 15 18.99% 4
Collaborative Learning 4 11.11% 10 15 34.88% 1 19 24.05% 1
Material use & development 7 19.44% 3 9 20.93% 3 16 20.25% 3
Lesson Planning 8 22.22% 1 9 20.93 3 17 21.52% 2
Multiple forms of assessment 3 8.33% 12 0 0 0 3 3.78% 13
Instructional resources use 5 13.89% 6 3 6.98% 8 8 10.13% 9
Learner-centered instruction 5 13.89% 6 8 18.60% 6 13 16.46% 6
Using instructional technology 5 13.89% 6 1 2.32% 12 6 7.59% 11
Contextual Teaching & Learning 1 2.78% 23 0 0 0 1 1.27% 23
SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 36) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 43) ALL PROVINCES (n = 79)
55
Q8: WHAT NEW ACTIVITIES IN FUTURE PROGRAMMING WOULD IMPROVE TEACHER CAPACITY & STUDENT LEARNING?
8. Future Activities Raw % Rank Raw % Rank Total % Rank LEGEND:
Quality instructor/tutor training 0 0 0 3 6.98% 4 3 3.78% 7 AL = Active Learning
Continuous AL training 0 0 0 1 2.32% 10 1 1.27% 14 ICT = Information & Communication Technology
Cheap teaching aids 0 0.00% 0 1 2.32% 10 1 1.27% 14 MTT = Master Teacher Trainer
AL & TT w/ ICT 3 8.33% 4 3 6.98% 4 6 7.59% 4 CRC = Cluster Resource Center
Material use & development 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14 TT = Teacher Training
Multiple forms of assessment 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14 BTL = Better Teaching & Learning
Collaborative Learning 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14
Mentoring training 0 0 0 1 2.32% 10 1 1.27% 14 NOTES:
AL w/ ICT 2 5.56% 7 1 2.32% 10 3 3.78% 7 1. There were no Junior Secondary Surveys for 
Professional Development Training 1 2.78% 8 1 2.32% 10 2 2.53% 11 Central Java.
Teacher Performance Assessment 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14 2. Three teachers did not know the difference 
Classroom management 1 2.78% 8 0 0 0 1 1.27% 14 between BTL 2, 3 and 4.
Outdoor/Environment Learning 1 2.78% 8 0 0 0 1 1.27% 14
Subject matter strengthening 5 13.89% 1 8 18.60% 1 13 16.46% 1
Guest native speaker for English class 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14
Exploration/Elaboration/Confirmation 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14
Effective trainings as needed by teachers 0 0.00% 0 2 4.65% 7 2 2.53% 11
Using instructional technology 5 13.89% 1 2 4.65% 7 7 8.86% 2
Instructional resources use 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14
Classroom Action Research 0 0.00% 0 1 2.32% 10 1 1.27% 14
Powerpoint training 3 8.33% 4 0 0.00% 0 3 3.78% 7
Local content / language training 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14
Module development 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14
Organized & advanced trainings 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14
Provide language lab with ICT 1 2.78% 8 1 2.32% 10 2 2.53% 11
Simple & realistic learning media 3 8.33% 4 4 9.30% 2 7 8.86% 2
Contextual learning 1 2.78% 8 0 0.00% 0 1 1.27% 14
Lesson planning with character 4 11.11% 3 2 4.65% 7 6 7.59% 4
Subject matter laboratory 0 0.00% 0 3 6.98% 4 3 3.78% 7
Forum for local & international teachers 0 0.00% 0 1 2.32% 10 1 1.27% 14
Comparative study / Study visits 0 0.00% 0 4 9.30% 2 4 5.06% 6
Provide every classroom with ICT 0 0.00% 0 1 2.32% 10 1 1.27% 14
Extra curriculums / classes 0 0.00% 0 1 2.32% 10 1 1.27% 14
SOUTH SULAWESI (n = 36) NORTH SUMATERA (n = 43) ALL PROVINCES (n = 79)
56
Explanation of Junior Secondary Teacher Survey
General Information
• Of 79 state junior secondary & madrasah teacher respondents in South Sulawesi and North 
Sumatera, 28 people (35.44%) were 9th grade teachers, 26 people (32.91%) were 8th grade 
teachers and 24 people (30.38%) were 7th grade teachers. One teacher (1.27%) did not answer 
the question.
• 39 people (49.37%) had tenure of more than 10 years and 20 people (25.32%) had tenure of 5 
to 10 years. Fifteen teachers (18.99%) did not answer the question.
• 65 people (82.28%) had Bachelors degree, 6 people (7.59%) had Masters and 2 people (2.53%) 
had Diplomas. Six people (7.59%) did not answer the question.
• 64 people (81.01%) were certified and 13 people (16.46%) people were not certified. Two 
teachers (2.53%) did not answer.
• 18 people (22.78%) were Science teachers, 17 people (21.52%) were English teachers, 15 people 
(18.99%) were Math teachers, 14 people (17.72%) were Indonesian language teachers and 12 
people (15.19%) were Social Science teachers.
Q1: How many years did you participate in the DBE programs?
Of the 79 teacher respondents, 53 people (67.09%) were involved in DBE for 1 to 3 years and 25 
people (31.65%) were involved for 4 to 6 years. One teacher (1.27%) did not answer the question.
Q2: Which DBE programs did you participate in?
Of the 79 teacher respondents, 60 people (75.95%) participated in BTL 2, 58 people (73.42%) 
participated in BTL 3, 39 people (49.37%) participated in ICT in BTL, 38 people (48.10%) participated in 
BTL 1 and 34 people (43.04%) participated in Integrating Life Skills into Classrooms.
Q3: Which DBE activities were most effective to improve your instructional skills in the classroom?
Of the 79 teacher respondents, 41 people (51.89%) said BTL 2, 39 people (49.37%) said BTL 3, 33 
people (41.77%) said ICT in BTL, 28 people (35.44%) said BTL 1, 26 people (32.91%) said Integrating Life 
Skills into Classrooms and 25 people (31.65%) said ICT for Life Skills.
Q4: Which of your teaching skills improved the most?
Of the 79 teacher respondents, 41 people (51.90%) said Material Use & Development, 41 people 
(51.90%) said Lesson Planning, 36 people (45.57%) said Collaborative Learning, 33 people (41.77%) said 
Providing Guidance & Feedback, 26 people (32.91%) said Classroom Management and 16 people 
(20.25%) said Learner-centered Instruction.
Q5: How effective were the DBE interventions in improving student learning in Math, Science and 
Language?
57
From an average scale of 1 to 10, 20 teachers felt Science Learning improved 69.50%, 35 teachers felt 
Language Learning improved 63.50% and 19 teachers felt Math Learning improved 60.55%.
60 teachers (75.95%) did not answer for Math, 59 teachers (74.68%) did not answer for Science and 35 
(46.83%) teachers did not answer for Language.
Q6: What DBE activities were most effective to improve student performance in any subject?
Of the 79 teacher respondents, 24 people (30.38%) said Collaborative Learning, 13 people (16.46%) said 
BTL 3, 12 people (15.19%) said Providing Guidance & Feedback, 12 people (15.19%) said Learner￾centered Instruction and 11 people (13.92%) said BTL 2. No teacher said BTL 1, Civics Modules, 
Mathematics Modules, Non-Curricular Toolkit, Increase Capacity of Principal & SPVs, Classroom 
Management and Multiple Forms of Assessment were effective for student learning.
Q7: What activities of the DBE programs should be replicated in other schools?
Of the 79 teacher respondents, 19 people (24.05%) said Collaborative Learning, 17 people (21.52%) said 
Lesson Planning, 16 people (20.25%) said Material Use & Development, 15 people (18.99%) said 
Classroom Management, 15 people (18.99%) said BTL 3, 13 people (16.46%) said BTL 2, 13 people 
(16.46%) said Learner-centered Instruction and 9 people (11.39%) said Providing Guidance & Feedback.
Q8: What new activities in future programming would improve teacher capacity and student learning?
Of the 79 teacher respondents, 13 people (16.46%) said "subject matter strengthening", 7 people 
(8.86%) said "using instructional technology", 7 people (8.86%) said "(simple & realistic) learning media", 
6 people (7.59%) said "AL & TT with ICT", 6 people (7.59%) said "lesson planning (with character)" and 
4 people (5.06%) said "comparative study / study visits
58
Annex 7: USAID Twenty-five Questions 
General Questions
1. What progress was made in terms of performance indicators, targets and program 
deliverables? What aspects of the DBE programs proved most and least effective?
Overall, the DBE program was remarkably successful. Over the six years of the program, 
USAID directly partnered with 74 districts, and more than 1,476 schools, 57,400 educators, and 
400,000 students have benefited from enhanced teaching and learning methods and improved 
school management and governance. When measured against the mutually agreed upon
performance indicators and targets, the DBE program outputs went well beyond the 
contractual standards and achieved even more outstanding impact through replication. For 
example, 84 districts and cities and more than 30,000 schools have used their own budgets and 
resources to replicate the DBE best practices. Although it is not possible to review all program 
‘deliverables’ in this space (please see full text of the final report), the DBE program must be 
judged as a very successful program. The DBE program introduced and demonstrated 
methods, tools and materials for improving the management and governance of schools and for 
improving teaching and learning and these methods, tools and materials should serve the GOI 
well into the future. 
In regard to the issue of which aspects of the DBE program proved to be most and least 
effective, it is a complex question again best answered in the full final report. Nevertheless, as 
seen by the clients of DBE (teachers and principals), the following responses are noted from 
surveys: 
• DBE1: the most effective components were the 1) school leadership training for principals, 
2) followed by the training in the development of school plans, and the 3) school committee 
training, the 4) BOS budgeting and 5) asset management tools. The least effective DBE1 
component was the school personnel management tools insofar as they seem to be seldom 
used by the districts.
• DBE2: According to the teachers, the most effective components to improve their 
instructional skills were the 1) active learning training; 2) the subject matter training; and 3) 
active learning with ICT. The least effective were: 1) teacher resource centers (CRCs) and 
2) accredited university training.
• DBE3: Using teachers’ responses as our standard, the most effective components were: 1) 
better teaching and learning: BTL2, BTL3, and the use of ICT in BTL. The least effective was 
BTL 4 (Please see Annex 6). 
59
2. Were DBE program interventions equally effective in poor and better off schools, in urban 
and rural schools, in madrasahs and public schools? Similarly, were there provincial or 
district differences in program outcomes?
It an attempt to answer these questions, the evaluation team carefully recorded through 
interview and observation a series of data that could serve as proxies for the effectiveness of 
program interventions. Each school was classified and then these proxies were tracked against 
income levels of schools, the urban and rural nature of the schools, and whether they were 
public or madrasah. These data were further aggregated by district and by province (please see 
annex 10). 
Despite the analysis, it is very difficult to determine any definitive patterns of effectiveness of 
interventions across different types of schools. The evaluation team observed from the data, 
for example, that schools in a rural, poor district in North Sumatra were less advanced in the 
application of active learning methods and had fewer good schools than other districts. At the 
same time, many of the rural, relatively poor districts in South Sulawesi had very good schools 
and some were the best schools the evaluation team saw anywhere. After seeing the very 
good rural schools in South Sulawesi, the team speculated that rural schools may have had 
fewer problems than urban schools because issues like overcrowding in urban schools 
(especially noted in the city of Makassar) may have a severe impact on the quality and 
application of active learning methods. Urban schools in other provinces however were quite 
good even with heavily used, over-crowded facilities. Across all provinces, however, it seems 
that interventions were equally effective in poor and better off schools and in urban and rural 
schools. Moreover, the evaluation team concluded that DBE interventions were equally 
effective in madrasah and public schools. The evaluation team found that schools in South 
Sulawesi were a level above schools in Central Java, while, in turn, the schools in Central Java 
were nearly a level above the schools in North Sumatra. 
60
3. Were there noticeable gender differences in program outcomes at the student level, at the 
school professional level or at the district and provincial administrative level?
There were noticeable gender differences in program outputs at all levels but it is not clear that 
these differences are significant or if there were gender differences in program ‘outcomes’ at 
different levels for a variety of reasons. One reason for the difficulty in answering this question 
is that the evaluation team could not find any information about the gender distribution by 
occupation within the districts or provinces. It was therefore, difficult to compare the outputs 
of the DBE program with the gender distribution of the district. Second, measuring outcomes 
at the student or school professional level requires closer observation or some other kind of 
baseline and outcome data in more detail than available to the evaluation team. 
To illustrate the difference in program outputs, DBE1 trained 40,839 people, of which 27,105 
were male and 13,734 were female. That means that only 33.6 percent of the people trained 
under DBE1 were female. The percent of females trained under DBE1 by occupational 
category were 33.1 percent of school principals, 29.3 percent of school committees, 54.9 
percent of teachers, 20.4 percent of MOEC district education staff, and 16.0 percent of MORA 
district staff. On the face of it, females appear to have had fewer training opportunities than 
men but, the evaluation team investigation found that there were decidedly less females than 
men in each of the above occupational categories, except for the position of primary school 
teacher. Without information about the gender distribution by occupational group nationwide 
and by district, which we could not find, it is impossible to draw any conclusions. 
From limited school observation, there did not seem to be any gender difference at the student 
level. Boys and girls seem to work well in groups and girls seemed to be as active in active 
learning schools as boys. Within the teacher ranks, both female and male teachers appear to 
adopt active learning methods equally well. We met articulate spokespeople and very good 
active learning teachers from both sexes. 
Age may play a stronger role in program outcomes than gender. We found, but cannot prove, 
that younger teachers seem more willing to accept and use active learning methods than older 
teachers. Moreover, older male teachers seem to be the most resistant to adopting active 
learning methods.
61
4. To what extent are DBE interventions showing signs that they are sustainable? What are 
the factors influencing sustainability?
Perhaps one of the major findings of the final evaluation is that the DBE interventions are not as 
sustainable as the final reports of the DBE1, 2, and 3 contracts would have led one to believe 
nor were as sustainable as USAID appeared to believe when it designed the follow-on 
PRIORITAS project. Much of what one concludes about the sustainability of the DBE 
interventions has to do about the definition of ‘sustainability’ and the factors that one focuses 
on to make a determination.
Typically, sustainability refers to the capacity to endure. If reference is made to the financial 
sustainability of an investment, one might look for evidence that the investment will endure 
beyond the initial period to some expected typical life of the investment. If referring to the 
sustainability of an education reform, the expectation would be that the positive impact of the 
reform continues beyond the life of the program for some undetermined length of time.
Assuming that the second definition is referred to, the DBE programs are clearly having a 
positive impact on the Indonesian school system and there are a number of bright spots in the 
Indonesian education system owing to the DBE-assisted schools. Nevertheless, in general, it 
appears that the impact of the program is rapidly dissipating. In DBE1, the initial enthusiasm 
generated by school planning and training of school principals and school committee members 
appears to be waning. In DBE2, the training of teachers in active learning methods seems to 
have reached a plateau and is rapidly fading in many schools. In DBE 3, the program had limited 
impact due to a late start and its impact on the schools is declining.
Some of the main factors which could have influenced sustainability include:
• Too rapid turnover of key personnel, like principals and school committee members;
• Superficial treatment and training of active learning methods;
• No program of professional development for teachers and insufficient professional 
development opportunities;
• Trying to do too much, with too little, too late;
• District field staff that our donor dependent and apparently indifferent to solving problems 
within their manageable interest; and
• Insufficient per capita funds to carry out real reform.
62
5. Were the central offices of MOEC and MORA sufficiently aware and supportive of the DBE 
interventions thereby helping to ensure that approaches pioneered by the DBE project 
were sustained and replicated? Conversely how effectively did DBE engage MOEC and 
MORA in its interventions? 
While central MOEC and MORA offices were aware of the DBE program on a general level, 
according to most feedback received, they were not really partners in the project and would be 
more appropriately termed ‘observers’ of the program. They were regularly invited to big 
events: openings, sharing and advocacy workshops, etc. and seemed to approve of what they 
heard of DBE. 
Provincial level offices seemed to be in a similar situation, knowledgeable and approving, but to 
their seeming dismay, not engaged. The provincial government officials interviewed by 
evaluators indicated their desire to be involved. As noted by one official, the DBE should not 
have skipped over the provincial level. His advice was that any new project needs to start work 
at the central level and work its way down to the school level, ‘not start in the middle at the 
district level.’ Key provincial-level actors who were not extensively involved in DBE were
Provincial Quality Assurance Institute (LPMP) and Subject Matter Training Center (P4TK) 
representatives; both of these organizations are responsible for improving teacher competency 
so need to be actively engaged and committed in any focus on teacher professional 
development.
As the DBE’s stated intention was to support the country’s decentralization movement, project 
efforts were focused largely at the district and school levels. District education offices were 
regularly involved in knowledge-sharing loops and officials were invited to trainings and 
workshops and enthusiastic about the changes in schools as a result of DBE. DBE district 
representatives, the Master Teacher Trainers (MTTs), were very successful and had a large 
responsibility for training and mentoring teachers and supporting CRCs. Other district-level 
individuals who were not well-engaged in DBE but could have added to the sustainability of a 
locally-provided teacher in-service system were supervisors and Subject Matter Specialists. 
A recommendation for PRIORITAS is to actively engage and ensure that all levels of the 
education sector are appropriately and adequately informed of the project. On a deeper level, 
getting buy-in from the government means working closely with identified individuals to ensure 
PRIORITAS’ goals closely align and contribute to government reforms efforts. 
63
6. How effective were DBE interventions in improving student learning in reading, math, and 
science? What DBE activities have been most responsible for increases in learning 
achievement? 
DBE interventions were shown to positively affect student learning achievement in math, 
science, and language as a result of project focus on improving teacher skills and knowledge. 
DBE 2 measured learning gains in math and language of Grade 3 students and math, language, 
and science of Grade 6 students across several years of project implementation. The results 
showed that DBE students consistently learned as a result of their teachers’ participation in 
active learning training, receiving higher scores than control students and consistent gains in 
learning in all subjects over the course of the program
While the tests were not designed to isolate which variables were most influential in increasing 
student learning, this evaluation sought information from teachers through surveys (N = 97) on 
which DBE interventions were considered most effective to improve student learning in any 
subject. Teachers responded that active learning training was most effective to improve student 
learning. Other interventions in descending order of effectiveness as ranked by teachers in 
three provinces who responded to surveys are: active learning with ICT, 
questions/discussions/voice [of students], student reflection, and collaborative learning. 
DBE 3 also conducted student learning assessments in project junior secondary schools to 
determine learning gains as a result of teacher involvement in training programs. Student 
assessment tests were conducted in partner schools after the DBE 3 was revised in 2009. 
Students were tested in Bahasa Indonesia reading and writing skills, mathematics, and English 
listening, reading, and writing. Results showed that all groups of students tested (girls, boys, 
public and madrasah [public and private] schools) achieved consistent gains on all tests over a 
period of two years (2009-2011) and rises in average test scores were evident except in English 
skills over the last year of testing (2010). During interviews, teachers consistently noted that 
the Better Teaching and Learning units were most effective in influencing students learning 
achievement. 
Institutionalization of proven methods of instruction should be a main goal of PRIORITAS. This 
will involve determining the current level of active learning present in project schools and the 
level of support needed through continued training to move it to a sustainable level. 
64
7. To what extent have DBE best practices at the local, district, and provincial level fed into 
education policy dialogue and reform? 
The work of DBE in strategic planning and management was very effective at the school and 
district level. After much refinement and revision, these tools and processes were eventually 
adopted by at the provincial and national levels. The school-based management process has 
become national policy, a great success of the DBE program.
From DBE 2, the use of active learning as the platform for teacher training has the potential to 
strongly influence national education reform efforts in in-service professional development. The 
method has proven to be highly-appreciated, shows learning results, and is popular with 
students and teachers. Additionally, the methodology strongly supports Standard Two of the 
National Standards of Education requiring the learning process to be interactive, inspirational, 
joyful, and motivating. Successful replication of DBE activities by some districts has resulted in 
some very good schools, showing the potential this approach has to improve education. 
Acceptance of the active learning pedagogy on a national level will depend on the combined 
efforts of key players to continue to show its effectiveness. PRIORITAS needs to show that 
well-trained teachers produce better-educated students, universities need to firmly implant the 
process to internal professional development policies in order to produce better-prepared pre￾service teacher candidates, and education officials at every level need to plan and fund the use
of the pedagogy into systems that support teaching and learning. The move to official 
recognition and adoption of the approach by name1 in government documents and policies 
(such as the National Standards) would assist to get the pedagogy accepted and used nationally. 
From a system point of view, the whole school approach of DBE 3 is really what education at 
the district-school level should look like - everyone who is involved and responsible for sound 
education provision is trained, knowledgeable of their roles and responsibilities, and in place to 
add their contribution. Although the revised DBE 3 operated over a limited time, the approach 
was beginning to show results. Continued efforts in the education sector by stakeholders 
should be addressed as a ‘whole’ package of reform rather than through piecemeal and 
independent interventions. 
 
1 In Indonesia, the term for active learning could show up as PAKEM as that term already has a history of use and understanding
in the country. In DBE 2 training literature, the term PAKEM was used in place of ‘active learning.’ 
65
8. Were there any major areas not supported by DBE that should have been in order to 
achieve intended program results? 
As successful as many of the DBE interventions were on a local basis, the evaluation team 
would have liked to see a more thorough assessment and presentation of the larger system of 
teacher professional development with identification of how the DBE efforts specifically fit into 
the scheme of in-service teacher preparation at the lower levels. As noted in the evaluation 
report, a schema of the national in-service professional development system does not exist. 
Given the complexity of the system, identification of the links between the districts and schools 
that represent the current system as practitioners seem to understand it, is vital to ensure that 
DBE efforts worked with and strengthened the appropriate individuals, leaving a stronger 
process of a locally-provided in-service teacher development system in place. Early 
identification of these individuals and the links they have in the system would have guided DBE 
to spend more efforts on training these key individuals and ‘connecting’ levels. DBE made great 
contributions to the training of teachers and principals but important individuals who are the 
next links in the system (at the district and provincial level) may not have received the attention 
they could have used; therefore the system remains weak at these junctures. Supervisors, 
Subject Matter Teachers, KKGs, and LPMPs (at the provincial level) would all seem to be 
important individuals to include in training efforts. PRIORITAS may consider working with the 
national government to identify and distribute a diagram of the in-service professional 
development system so that all stakeholders understand how it works and know their part in it. 
This should assist to identify logical paths of training provision.
66
9. How did the DBE districts and provinces engage with their local universities on education 
issues? How about the P4TK and with LPMP? What have been some effective strategies for 
strengthening these linkages? What could be other effective strategies? 
In the investigation of university involvement in the education system and a possible role in the 
provision and institutionalization of in-service teacher training, the evaluation team found a few 
instances of engagement between institutes of higher education and district education offices. 
While connections currently seem to be at a more surface level and not a deeper engagement 
on education issues, these beginnings could form the basis for future, closer ties as each side 
understands how it could benefit from cooperation with the other partner.
Universities send out teacher candidates and other students to do practicum teaching and 
community service at schools. Whether these placements involve the district offices or not 
evaluators could not determine but certainly a basis for a relationship is there. In several cases, 
universities provided training to teachers, principals, district education officers, etc. and to 
LPMP staff at the provincial level at the request and funding of the respective education offices. 
The evaluation team also heard of lecturers fulfilling their community service requirements 
through provision of various services to district offices. One university, UPI in West Java, for 
example, sent lecturers to the district offices to disseminate DBE 1 best practices. 
One effective strategy for making stronger linkages was the hosting of a ‘shopping mall’ for 
district officers by the State University of Makassar to showcase services the university 
provides for professional development of education staffs. District education officers can look 
over the various services the university offers to identify suitable ones that support individual 
district needs. As a result, the University has trained teachers in several districts through their 
fee-for-service ‘effective schools’ center. The evaluation team found this business model of 
training provision effective as the process matches need with provision and benefits both 
partners. As it is, school-level practitioners do not always have a high opinion of the ability of 
university lecturers to understand the realities of education provision in schools; therefor such 
a business model, to be successful, would force universities to become more effective at
offering targeted services. 
School practitioners seem to have a poor awareness of just what role universities could play in 
in-service professional training; therefore strategies will need to focus on ‘advertising’ of 
university services. These could involve for example, ‘traveling university road shows’ where a 
team of university representatives sets up in districts and displays various services available. 
Larger centrally-located universities might also identify local universities with which to partner 
to provide information-sharing opportunities and delivery sites for district-level activities. 
Universities themselves should improve the types of services they can offer, providing for 
example, flexible certification programs or adult education classes in active learning, leadership 
for principals and supervisors, special education and inclusion, subject-area intensive training 
(useful for Subject Matter Specialists), and student assessment and evaluation courses. 
University programs need to provide flexible and specific provision to education staffs who 
continue to work. These short programs however should be linked to the larger system of 
professional development.
67
10. Which of the DBE modules are the most replicated and disseminated? Who does the 
replication and dissemination and why? Are replication practices at the same standard of 
quality as the original? Which modules are replicated in whole and which are replicated in 
part? Are there steps that could be taken for further distribution and use of the modules?
This is a set of six questions is very difficult to answer succinctly ‘after-the-fact’ as there seems 
to be no combined set of information for the three DBE projects. This is a reflection of the 
state of collaboration and communication among the projects (not good), their complexity,
(too much) and the state of oversight (too little). While there was qualitative and quantative 
reporting for each project, putting together a combined analysis of information for all three 
projects that would answer these questions in overview form during the implementation of all 
three projects did not appear to occur.
Which of the DBE modules are the most replicated and disseminated?2
• DBE1, the most replicated module was RKS/RKT (Annual School Plans and School Annual 
Medium-Term Plans): in 10,343 schools.3
 
• In DBE2, the most replicated module cannot be determined from project reports despite an 
extensive review. There were 26 modules and from interviews they were apparently all 
liked, especially math and science. A Deliverables Tracker Final Report in the DBE2 Final 
Report4 lists ‘transition activities’ on project best practices by numbers of schools covered 
per quarter for 2010 and 2011 (7500 schools) but there appears to be no information on 
which module was most replicated. 
• In DBE3, the most disseminated/replicated module was BTL2 (basic concepts of Active 
Learning, life skills, and the role of the facilitator and basic school leadership skills). 
Dissemination took place in 6,440 junior secondary schools and the BTL2 module was 
disseminated in 34 percent of them (or about 2,189 schools). 
Who does the replication and dissemination and why? 
In terms of who directly did the replication, in many cases it was the DBE facilitators and 
Master Trainers, working through the DINAS. The courses/programs were custom-tailored to 
what the DINAS wanted in terms of time and money. The DBE3 Project Dissemination Report 
provided the most complete answer to this question, including ‘why’. “The most common type 
of dissemination (58 percent in DBE3) was the direct provision of support for training on one 
or more of the teacher modules to individual schools or group of schools......The main reason 
for supporting this type of dissemination activity was to affect change within the schools 
involved.” Another type of direct dissemination activity occurred when direct support was 
provided to a District or Provincial Department to assist them to implement their own plans 
 
2
 In the DBE3 dissemination report, ‘dissemination’was defined as “the process where the programs or innovations 
developed under the DBE3 project is implemented independently by others beyond the original project areas using their own 
resources. ‘Transition’ was defined as the process where project-led management, financing, leadership and management 
are gradually transferred to local stakeholders.’Replication’ is defined as “the action of copying or duplicating something 
exactly.” Lorna Power and Wasmiyati Zainul Bachri. (undated but probably 2011) Project Dissemination Report
(DBE3). 
3 RTI International (2011). More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance.(DBE1). P. 43. 4 Final Report DBE2 Project 2005-2011-Volume 3. pp. 22-23. 
68
for dissemination. In these cases, support was provided to train key persons, ‘Indirect’ support 
occurred when people and institutions trained directly through the (DBE3) program went on to 
formally or informally train others independently and without any DBE3 support.” These 
definitions would seem to apply to all DBEs. 
Are replication practices at the same standard of quality as the original?
Basically, no, but with important exceptions (such as in Sidrap in South Suluwesi, where the 
program had been replicated to all 236 schools in all 11 sub-districts, and even there it is 
difficult to judge the possible quality differences). Why? One reason stems from the lack of 
consistent quality guidelines in and from the projects and among provinces, and compromises 
on quality in implementation of replications even when there were guidelines. Provinces were 
often allowed to develop their own approaches and tactics to disseminate/replicate with one 
result that quality standards slipped in the process. Dissemination therefore seemed to be 
open to interpretation and segments of the dissemination could be deleted in different 
locations. A second reason seems to be that quantity of replications was valued more highly 
than quality in the projects; one attitude expressed was that the main goal of dissemination was 
to achieve high outputs to report to USAID. 
The most candid and complete explanation of quality standards for replication came from the 
DBE3 dissemination report submitted to USAID; it is difficult to substantiate replication 
practices for DBE1 and 2. DBE3 did set quality standards for the dissemination of project 
innovations. The standards included the order in which the modules were presented, a 
minimum of one complete project unit (module) being used in its intended lifetime, training 
implemented by qualified DBE3 facilitators, and at least 10 participants from a single institution 
must be involved in training. “In terms of of participants per school and complete training 
programs used, these standards were more frequently not met”5 The overall quality standards 
“were not adhered to 50 percent of the time”.6 A footnote in the DBE3 dissemination report 
states that “it should be noted that DBE3 does not include or report the numbers of 
institutions, participants funding and so on in the official project data as it is not possible to 
collect and verify it.” This would particularly seem to apply to indirect replication. The DBE3 
dissemination report concludes with this telling statement which says much about why the 
quality of replication/dissemination was not the same as the original: “There was no real depth 
of understanding of the real significance of dissemination. For DBE3 the main goal of dissemination 
seemed to be to achieve numbers to report to USAID. The higher the numbers the more successful the 
project was perceived to be. USAID did nothing to dispel this. ”7
Recommendations to ensure replication quality in future projects. The findings on quality of 
replication noted above are instructive on what not to do in future attempts at replication and 
lead naturally to recommendations for improving the quality of this practice. Aside from not 
trying to do too much at once (and having a three-part project that takes different approaches 
to, and even different names for, ‘replication’) the DBE3 Project Dissemination Report (2011) 
has already given USAID and future projects a set of excellent recommendations that can serve 
 
5 Ibid. Power and Bachri (2011) p 41. 6 Ibid. 72.
7 Ibid. 
69
as guidelines for ensuring or at least improving, replication quality. The most important of 
these recommendations include, in abbreviated and annotated form: 
• Re-think dissemination (replication). Dissemination activities (must be) given equal status with 
other project activities and are implemented with as much attention.
• Focus on quality not quantity. Related to this point, all project monitoring and evaluation plans 
should assess the quality and impact of the replication, and not just the quantity, and this 
should be done annually. Objective monitors should conduct these assessments.
• Maintain standards. Standards should be set for conducting dissemination/replication and 
should be strictly adhered to. Data collected should be reviewed regularly to make sure 
that standards are being followed, and the standards themselves should also be regularly 
reviewed.
• Don’t be in a hurry. Projects should not be pressured to disseminate too quickly and too 
early. 
• Plan for dissemination. Projects need an overall approach to replication, including strategies 
and promoting and supporting it, but also policies and priorities. “Dissemination should 
start from project schools and spread outwards, like dominos…” “Replicate to new 
schools within partner districts, before spreading out to new districts and provinces.”
• Build capacity in new districts. Approach the district first and build local capacity first before 
spreading to individual schools.
• Use national and district planning and review meetings. (the provincial level should now be 
involved as well). Such meetings were found to be one of the most effective ways to build 
commitment and funding for dissemination/replication efforts in DBE, and should be 
continued in the future. A key point in this recommendation is that there should be 
consequences for lack of commitment including withdrawal of financial support and even 
replacement of districts that do not perform over the long term. 
• Plan for a shift in responsibility. “Funding should increasingly be provided by local sources and 
by the end of the project, districts should be covering all dissemination costs.” “Projects 
need to plan in a cutoff point when the project no longer provides financial support for 
dissemination.”8
Which modules are replicated in whole and which are replicated in part?
This is very difficult to know for all three DBEs. In DBE3, if the training was less than the 
minimum number of days, and this occurred in about 10 percent of that project’s dissemination 
activities, then it indicated that content had been reduced or cannibalized. 
Are there steps that could be taken for further distribution and use of the modules? 
Yes. The modules could be updated and improved for use in PRIORITAS. Working more 
closely with the education offices at all levels could lead to wider and more effective 
distribution. Most importantly, however, before anyone contemplates further distribution and 
use of these modules, better planning/preparation must take place. Steps should include (as 
noted in the DBE3 report):
• Re-think dissemination. Give it equal status and attention as other project activities.
 
8 For the complete set of recommendations, see pages 73-75 of the Project Dissemination Report (2011) by Lorna 
Power and Wasmiyati Zainul Bachri
70
• Focus on quality, not quantity. Indicators should also assess quality and impact.
• Develop comprehensive standards; maintain them.
71
11. Has DBE’s approach to Islamic education been effective? Are there any special needs/issues 
that should be considered for the future in order to engage effectively with MORA?
The project reported that DBE was equally as successful in Islamic schools as in the general 
school system and in some cases, results in Islamic schools were better than in conventional 
schools. Observations and interviews by the evaluation team seemed to confirm this. There 
were two or three very good madrasah schools in the sample and some that were not so good. 
MOEC and MORA officials did seem to communicate at the district level but MORA 
supervisors were in short supply and some of them felt they needed to know more about 
subject matter outside of religious studies. There remains the question as to why private Islamic 
school foundation members and principals were not included in DBE training. In Central Java it 
is noted that there were large numbers of private schools that were not equally serviced, not 
receiving necessary support, even though they are asked to follow government policies. 
For future activities, DBE appears to have laid a good foundation for future work with Islamic 
education institutions. In terms of training programs, supervisors need to receive much greater 
attention and, if possible, private Islamic school foundation members and principals need to be 
included in any program as they too should be members of a Whole School Approach. There 
seems to be the need for more ‘outreach’ activities to these private Islamic schools and more 
cooperation from MOEC/MORA in focusing on them. As part of improvements in 
communication and collaboration, MORA needs much greater attention at all levels. 
72
12. What lessons were learned about large project management in Indonesia’s complex 
education sector?
Large project management can be difficult in any circumstances and that was certainly true in 
the three DBEs in Indonesia. Indonesia is complex and so is the education sector; it is dynamic, 
and ever changing, even if not as quickly as anyone would like. Because of the system’s size, it is 
also difficult to make an impact. Given the complexity and size of the educational system, 
splitting DBE into three projects made it even more complex. ‘Large project management’ 
sometimes just means unmanageable. USAID should consider not implementing such large and 
complex projects in the future. The lessons are:
• Limit objectives, components and complexity. In the aftermath of DBE, it appears that each 
DBE component had too many activities ongoing at the same time often resulting in 
resources and information being spread too thinly and uncoordinated programs. A 
corallary to this lesson is the need to focus on what works and limit the ‘ornaments on the 
tree.’ 
• Coordination with the GOI. Many observers noted that MOEC and MORA officials at all levels 
were not really partners in the program. Most suggested a new way of doing business with 
better communication and coordination between USAID and MOEC/MORA should be at 
the heart of the new paradigm. Suggestions for better communication include: 
1)Memorandum of Agreement between the various entities (USAID and MORA, 
PRIORITAS and local DINAS) to establish clear roles and responsibilities of the parties; 2) 
sharing work plans before implementation of program and annual reviews of progress; 3) 
site visits and workshops for central and provincial government officers to review district 
level exemplary programs; and 4)written proposals to MOEC and MORA at all levels on 
program problems and solutions about how that government level could assist the reforms.
• Value of a well sequenced and coordinated approach. For the DBE approach to work well, the 
inputs to the school have to be coordinated and well sequenced. When the inputs are 
properly sequenced, the results are spectacular and moribund schools can be turned into 
thriving schools that are the pride of the community and where children can’t wait to go to 
school to learn. 
• Sustainability requires GOI commitment, communication, and a quid quo pro. As part of the 
renewed communication and coordination between the program and districts, there should 
be clear-cut targets and commitments for funding. Changes in key personnel such as 
principals should only be made in consultation with the project or if there is a suitable 
replacement. District governments must become full partners with USAID and PRIORITAS, 
communicating their needs, monitoring the progress of the program and taking action to 
ensure success of the program, and committing funds to supplement and sustain programs 
that show good promise. 
73
13. How have DBE interventions contributed to the fulfillment of minimum service standards as 
well as national standards of education in the DBE target districts?
The Education Minimum Service Standards (MSS), formally were established in 2010 (Law No. 
15) and consist of 27 specific standards, all of which are supposed to be attained by 2013. While 
DBE interventions did not basically affect the standards relating to facilities and infrastructure in 
the target districts, they did contribute to standards on the learning process, improving the 
qualifications of teachers, and implementation of the principle of school-based management (the 
latter largely being a direct influence of DBE1). Future efforts should also focus on the standard 
for teachers to provide learning assessment for students to help them improve their learning. 
DBE made important contributions to the following National Standards:
• The National Standard is: “The school management in basic and secondary level implements 
school-based management which is demonstrated by autonomy, partnership, participation, 
openness, and accountability” DBE1 was very influential with its school-based management 
(SBM) program. 
• The National Standard for the teaching-learning process is: 
o The learning process at school is interactive, inspirative, joyful, motivating learners to actively 
participate, and providing ample opportunities for initiative, creativity, and independency based 
on the learners’ aptitude, interest, and physical and psychological development.The efforts of 
all the DBEs in active learning and other participatory methods, as well as the 
accompanying creative materials, are well-respected, influential and appreciated. 
o Every school carries out lesson planning, learning process, assessment on learning result, and 
learning process supervision for the sake of the implementation of effective and efficient 
learning process. The DBEs contributed much to lesson planning and the implementation 
of effective and efficient learning processes. 
Through its training programs for teachers, the DBE programs also contributed to the National 
Standard on Educators and Education Personnel for improving pedagogic and professional 
competence. 
74
14. How have the DBE projects complemented, overlapped, and/or filled in a void with respect 
to other major international donor efforts such as AusAID, the World Bank, and JICA?
DBE projects have sometimes inadvertently and sometimes purposefully complemented, 
overlapped and/or filled in a void with respect to other international donor efforts. The DBE 
focus on the district and school level, working from the ground up, has definitely 
complemented (or filled in a void) the work of AusAid and their ‘work from the center 
approach,’ the World Bank and others. There is much mutual learning to be had from both 
these efforts. The DBE1 initiatives on School-based Management (SBM) have been very 
influential and complemented the efforts of the other donors. The Active Learning Modules 
developed by DBE2 have been used by the World Bank in their continued focus on improving 
teacher competency. DBE3 has used the ‘lesson study’ approach (BTL4) that has been at the 
center of JICA initiatives and while this might be construed as overlapping, it is important to 
overlap when a method from one donor proves successful. The work of the DBEs in terms of 
teacher professional development can and should provide an important area for cooperation in 
the future, especially in the development of a graduated series/sequence of high-quality in￾service training after certification. 
75
DBE1 Questions
1. The DBE1 project had a mandate to support planning and strengthen management at the 
local and district levels. To what extent were approaches undertaken in support of this 
mandate successful.
By all accounts the approaches undertaken by DBE1 (training, tools and methods) to strengthen 
management and planning at the local and district levels were very successful. All of the 
stakeholders interviewed who took the training programs developed and delivered by DBE1 
(district education office staff, principals, teachers, school committee members) touted the 
training as very useful for their jobs and strengthening the management of schools. Some even 
went so far as to claim that it was the most useful, most practical training they had received in 
their career and that the training had made a huge difference in their performance. All of the 
stakeholders interviewed (district planning, budgeting and analytical staff) who used the tools 
and methods (including the planning and budgeting tools, the school cost analysis tools, and the 
facilities and personnel management tools) all maintained that they were excellent, had made 
their work easier, and had seriously strengthened the ability of the district to make good 
decisions and policy.
In the absence of any evidence about the quality of management in the districts and schools, 
either before or after the DBE1 interventions, it is difficult to offer any proof of strengthened 
management other than the testimony of those partners who were in the program. When one 
compares how schools are managed where the principal was not DBE1 trained, generally one 
can see a marked improvement in the management practices at DBE1-trained school. Since the 
evaluation did not travel to non-DBE districts, there is no basis for comparison between 
districts. 
Given the available evidence, it seems fair to conclude that the DBE1 program successfully 
fulfilled its mandate to support and improve planning and management at schools and districts. 
Nevertheless, self-governance is embryonic in Indonesia and despite the gains made by DBE1, 
much strengthening must occur. 
76
2. How did DBE1 respond to the needs of schools, districts and provincial governments? 
How effective were they in ensuring good practices were institutionalized?
Perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the DBE1 program was its ability to respond to the 
needs of schools, and districts. Although they moved toward responding to the needs of 
provincial government in the later stages of the program, the main focus of DBE1 was on 
schools and districts. In many respects, DBE1 was a service-oriented, demand-driven 
organization that worked collaboratively with its partners to train personnel and develop, pilot, 
finalize, and attempt to institutionalize financial and management tools and methodologies that 
responded to GOI policy and would improve the management and governance of schools. 
Stakeholders interviewed by the evaluation team repeatedly stressed that DBE1 was excellent 
in its ability to respond to schools and district needs.
As the program progressed, the focus of DBE1 shifted from building tools to building the 
capacity of the GOI and service providers to use the tools by, among other things, jointly 
planning and implementing programs with schools and districts, basing interventions on GOI 
policy, ensuring that programs were affordable for partners, and developing manuals to 
institutionalize the best practices. The fact that schools, districts and other partners committed 
substantial local funding (over US$ 2 million by DBE1 estimates) to replicated DBE1 programs 
in 15 provinces, 148 districts and over 16,000 schools appears to confirm that DBE1 provided 
good products and services to fill the needs of its counterparts.
Despite these apparent successes at servicing the needs of schools, districts, and provinces, the 
final evaluation found that turnover in key personnel such as principals and school committee 
members and other factors have severely hampered the program. The initial gains from the 
school-based and district management programs appear to be fading. For some inexplicable 
reason, the district education officers are not offering training programs to new school 
committee members and DBE-trained principals are being replaced by principals who have had 
no DBE training and do not understand the program. It appears that DBE1 did all the right 
things to institutionalize the program within districts but districts apparently do not see the 
need to follow up the program with refresher courses. In this light, it is not clear how effective 
the DBE1 program was to institutionalize the program. 
77
3. What were the most influential factors in increasing the participation of school committee 
members and parents? What are the biggest challenges?
Although the evaluation team asked questions about the most influential factors increasing the 
participation of school committee members from a variety of stakeholders (principals, teachers, 
supervisors, district education officers, and school committee members), the results of the 
inquiry were indeterminate. Apparently there is a host of countervailing factors influencing the 
participation of school committee members. 
Many stakeholders noted that the initial DBE1 training of school committee members, 
principals, and teachers, along with the new focus on the school, generated a great deal of 
community enthusiasm and involvement in the school. Once the training and attention on the 
school had ended and it became clear that there were no additional resources forthcoming 
from DBE1, interest from the community and the school committee members began to fade. 
Over time both principals and school committee members who had been trained by DBE1 
were transferred or completed their term in office and the replacements for these key people 
were not trained. 
Over the life of the DBE program, the GOI instituted the BOS payments to schools and there 
apparently was a good deal of fanfare touting the notion that education was now free. For 
many, this meant that no fees would be charged for any child to enter school and parents could 
not be solicited for additional financial or in-kind contributions. Finally, journalists, looking to 
uncover evidence of corruption in schools, often focused on the management of BOS funds by 
principals and school committee members and community contributions in schools. 
As a result of these factors, community involvement in schools appears to have waned and in 
some districts, especially in very poor areas, most school committee members and principals 
claim that efforts to involve parents and school committees in the schools have a low payoff or 
they are simply a waste of time. Some principals even go so far as to claim that parents in their 
community are too poor, too ignorant, and too unconcerned about their children to care about 
their education. 
78
4. How effective was the project in increasing the capacity of personnel at the school and 
district?
At first glance, the DBE1 program was exceptionally effective in increasing the capacity of 
personnel at the school and district. Over the life of the program, DBE1 carried out 5,893 
training activities. Almost 69 percent of those training activities took place in four provinces 
(Central Java, East Java, South Sulawesi, and North Sumatra). Most of those training activities 
(80 per cent) took place in the three years 2007- 2009. DBE1 trained a total of 40,839 people 
(66.3 percent were male) of which 11,504 (28.1 percent) were school committee members, 
8,109 (19.9 percent) were teachers, 5,044 (12.4 percent) were principals, 4,524 (11.1 percent) 
were district education staff and another 3,225 (7.9 percent were district facilitators, 
supervisors and MORA staff. Over 79 percent of the people trained by DBE were from 
districts and schools. 
In addition to the 1,272 original DBE1 target schools, an additional 16,106 schools had 
implemented some aspect of the DBE1 school-based management package, including training in 
the development of school plans, strengthening school committees, improving school 
leadership, asset and financial management, and BOS reporting or school database systems 
using counterpart funds equal to US $ 2 million. Over 64 percent of the additional schools 
used their funds to implement training in medium-term or annual school plans. DBE1 estimated 
that for every one project-funded school another 12 schools used DBE1 developed tools and 
training programs. In the end, DBE1 claims to have reached 15 provinces, 148 districts, over 
16,000 schools and over 40,000 government officials, teachers, principals and local stakeholders.
Despite these very impressive numbers, the final evaluation team found that much of the initial 
enthusiasm generated by the training programs and tools has faded. School plans and planning 
have often become an onerous task driven by gathering hard-to-find data and many school 
objectives have crept up into the ‘unrealistically unattainable’ category rather than based on the 
realities of the school. An inordinate number of trained principals had been transferred and 
replaced with principals who had not received DBE1 training. Most of the school committee 
members had not had any school management training and did not always understand their 
role. In some poor schools and districts the DBE1 school-based management training appears 
to have been poorly administered and did not ‘catch,” or the notion that “education is free” 
and community participation in education is to be discouraged after BOS, has crippled the 
impact of the DBE1 training. 
It appears, therefore that DBE1 was very effective in increasing the capacity of a variety of 
stakeholders but factors outside the project’s control such as principal turnover crippled the 
sustainability of capacity development. 
79
DBE 2 Questions 
1. The DBE 2 project had a mandate to improve the quality of teaching and learning in 
Indonesia’s primary schools. To what extent were approaches undertaken in support of this 
mandate successful? 
As reviewed extensively in the evaluation report, the active learning approach was highly 
successful and appreciated. Teachers and principals consistently noted how much teacher and 
student behavior had positively changed as a result of active learning. Local educators did not 
have evidence in the form of test scores and learning achievements available as proof of success 
of active learning approaches,9 although many noted for example that scores on the National 
Exam had improved. Many practitioners had developed their own indicators of effectiveness of 
active learning including the following: participation and success in special academic Olympiads, 
increased school attendance, decreased student drop-out, increased grade six graduation, and 
entrance to junior secondary schools of choice. The active engagement of students in their 
learning, increased motivation, creativity, willingness to express themselves, participation in 
groups, and asking questions of the teachers were all cited as evidence of active learning. 
DBE2 also fulfilled its mandate to improve instructional abilities of teachers involved in the 
program. According to project monitoring efforts, DBE teachers consistently out-scored non￾DBE teachers in control groups in classroom management, the use of teaching-learning 
activities, instructional planning, and student assessment. This was determined through the use 
of a standardized instrument covering fourteen observable teacher actions in classrooms and 
through teacher interviews. The greatest areas of difference between DBE2 and control 
teachers were the use of lesson planning and the amount of interaction between students and 
teachers, indicating that DBE2 had been effective in changing teachers’ instructional behavior. 
Based on observations, the evaluation team also determined that teachers who had been 
trained by DBE2 were more actively involving their students in classroom learning than 
teachers in non-DBE schools. 
 
9 Teachers either didn’t have them or were at least hesitant to show them to the evaluation team. 
80
2. Are there DBE 2 activities or best practices that could or should serve as the basis to 
reform national policy? 
As noted in General Question # 7 above, the active learning approach has the potential to 
serve as the basis to infuse national policy. It closely aligns with the government’s National 
Standards of Education, offering an effective, culturally-trialed and acceptable system of student 
learning that both students and teachers enjoy. The approach offers a proven method to 
address different learning needs and styles of children, is adaptable to all subjects, and results in 
academic and behavioral gains. It needs to be continually reinforced and focused on however so 
the success and use of the approach continues to expand.
The efforts of DBE 2 in the in-service preparation of teachers generated several practices that 
were often noted as effective and valuable to assist teachers to learn. These should be 
considered in any future focus on teacher competency and reforms to the system of 
professional development: 
• Training composed of classroom presentations of theory coupled with opportunities for 
immediate practical application in classrooms was very successful;
• Mentoring after training was considered by many as one of the best DBE practices for 
teacher training;
• Training packages and modules that were developed through the combined efforts of 
experts in the field (for example, university lecturers and school practitioners) were very 
successful and continue to be used;
• Many noted that individuals responsible for the training and monitoring of professional 
development (teachers, principals, and supervisors) should all have similar foundational 
training. 
81
3. How effective were the contributions made by Indonesian and U.S universities to DBE 2’s 
in-service teacher training initiatives? What do the Indonesian partner universities see as 
DBE strengths in terms of improving their methods of teacher training? 
Several activities undertaken by the Indonesian and U.S university partnerships may have 
directly contributed to DBE in-service teacher training initiatives although taken as a whole, the 
partnership activities might be said to have more directly built internal university capacity and 
only indirectly supported in-service training capacity. This opinion was supported by both 
Indonesian and U.S university participants, who noted that partnership activities more directly 
addressed pre-service teacher preparation. 
The development of the training modules by combined teams of university staffs and education 
practitioners was probably one of the most effective activities of the university partnerships as 
the modules continue to be used by various actors in the education sector. Moreover, lecturers 
who were involved in the development of these modules worked directly with teachers and 
schools to pilot the modules, the first time many lecturers had actually worked at the 
classroom level. The experience they gained of the realities of education in schools most likely 
continues to influence their work in the teacher training institutes in their universities. 
Two activities that were related through technology, the distance education pilots and 
accredited training courses seemed to individually have limited impact on in-service training. 
The one distance education pilot supported the on-line training of coaches for teachers in 
integration of ICT in the classroom. An assessment of the initiative indicated that teachers still 
preferred to have large amounts of face-to-face contact during training rather than large 
amounts of on-line training, which seems to indicate a current limited preference for on-line 
formats for in-service training provision. 
The evaluation team met few teachers during school interviews who had actually participated in 
the accredited training which may lead to the conclusion that the activity was rather small in 
scale and had limited impact. Practitioners who knew of the activity seemed to indicate that it 
was not particularly effective as participating teachers only received four university credits 
towards certification and the program was not expanded enough to provide a full course of 
credits needed for a degree.
The classroom action research intervention was well-received by university lecturers but only 
minimally noted or understood by school practitioners. This activity seems to have great utility 
for the future to assist university and eventually school-level instructors to rigorously research 
issues in the education system that could directly impact the way education is presented in the 
classroom. 
The Active Learning for Higher Education (ALFHE) initiative was by far the most successful 
university activity of DBE and continues to be replicated. The evaluation team heard much 
positive feedback on the influence the approach has had on the way instruction is presented at 
the university level. It has the most potential to affect pre-service preparation of teachers as 
they will graduate and go into schools with a knowledge and experience of a sound teaching 
approach. 
82
4. Were new approaches (classroom reading program and distance education pilots) under 
DBE 2, initiated post-mid-term evaluation effective?
Feedback from educators indicated that the classroom reading program was highly appreciated 
by teachers and well-liked by the children. The pleasure books donated by the DBE 2 to 
partner schools were often located in ‘reading corners’ in classrooms and teachers had 
established regular reading times (for example, ten minutes at the beginning of every day, 
twenty minutes every Friday, etc.) in which children appeared to eagerly participate. 
Conversations with teachers indicated that despite the concentrated focus on reading, 
children’s reading abilities did not appear to significantly increase nor did they necessarily 
exhibit increased reading ability in other subjects; rather the reading program had drastically 
increased their interest in reading. 
In the distance education initiative, DBE 2 piloted two activities on a small scale which from a 
larger perspective seem to have limited impact. In the first pilot, the focus was on the use of 
on-line learning to cultivate the skills of school-based coaches to assist teachers to use ICT in 
student-centered classroom activities. Results of an assessment of this activity proved that on￾line instructional delivery was useful to train teacher coaches but also that the most successful 
forms of on-line delivery were those that included a relatively large amount of face-to-face 
instruction. The second pilot involved training 100 faculty members from DBE 2 partner 
universities to become certified on-line professional development providers and who ultimately 
were able to produce nearly one hundred on-line courses. Lecturers were enthusiastic about 
the training they had received and extolled the extreme benefits of on-line information 
dissemination, but did note however that their university currently does not have plans to 
continue use of on-line coursework nor the technical capacity (bandwidth) to do so. 
In conclusion, the reading program was popular and has built a good foundation on which to 
base future efforts in literacy. More attention perhaps should be spent on training teachers how 
to teach reading so improved reading skills will impact all subjects. Also, more age-appropriate 
pleasure books are needed for grades four to six so the momentum for pleasure reading gained 
in the earlier grades does not diminish. The DBE distance education effort was deemed by 
evaluators as having potential. The pilots proved popular but the numbers of participants 
involved were small, making definitive conclusions as to its immediate utility difficult. Both
technology pilots also reinforced what evaluators found often about ICT usage in the field: on￾line access and the level of computer literacy of participants are limited. The evaluation team 
feels that the idea of distance education is be a good one for future consideration, but the 
approach has many logistical and practical issues that need to be confronted before it can be 
fully and successfully implemented. 
83
DBE3 Questions
1. The DBE3 project originally had a mandate to improve the quality and relevance of 
education for youth with a focus on life and work skills. Following the midterm, DBE3 
withdrew from nonformal education and focused on a whole-school approach to improving 
the quality and relevancy of education for youth. To what extent was the quality/relevance 
approach successful? 
The response to this question on the extent of success is in three parts, focusing on; (1) the 
scope of the final evaluation. (2) determining what DBE3 had already monitored and reported 
to USAID related to the extent of quality/relevance success, and (3) reviewing the extent of 
success of the Whole School Approach in which, as noted in the question, quality/relevance 
was embedded. 
The extent to which the quality/relevance approach was successful requires research beyond 
the scope of this evaluation. Why? First, because of time contraints, the evaluation team did not 
interview students; the main beneficiaries/targets of the quality/relevance approach. Second, the 
teachers who were interviewed had little to say about life skills and quality/relevance. Third, 
much more time would have been needed than was available to implement the type of 
concentrated observation in classrooms and/or tracer studies of relevant youth outside the 
classroom to verify the extent of success. The extent of success of the quality/relevance 
approach is a very good question for an impact study; a study that should be done. 
A second response to the question is to review what DBE3 already did to monitor and report 
on the project indicators encompassing life skills in the context of quality and relevance (a 
theme in the Better Teaching and Learning modules of the revised project; life skills continued 
as a theme both before and after the midterm evaluation).
In 2009, USAID and DBE3 agreed upon a revised set of project indicators. One of those 
indicators was that ‘students demonstrate new learning behaviors in class’ and one of the five 
learning behaviors monitored included “students demonstrate life skills in the areas of personal, 
social and academic development (according to MONE guidelines), including working in a group and 
problem solving.” The project monitored, principally by classroom observation, both student 
behavior and student performance on life skills competencies. By 2011, 90.4 percent in project 
extension schools were rated as having demonstrated student behavior that met at least three 
of the pre-determined criteria; a possible proxy for estimating the extent of educational 
quality/relevance success. It should be noted that in the last year of the project, 2011, another 
indicator for student performance on life skills was discontinued. Nevertheless, DBE3 did 
supply some information to USAID on the extent of quality/relevance.
Third, to the extent that quality/relevance was a part of the Whole School approach, as noted 
in the question, its overall success must also be reflected in the extent of success of that 
Approach itself. The Whole School Approach was central to DBE3, and the evaluation team 
found that while it was an excellent concept, it was never really implemented during the 
relatively short life of DBE3. The degree to which this lack of success affected the quality and 
relevance of education provided for youth can only be surmised at this point without the types 
of research already noted.
84
2. How successful was DBE3 in achieving its three main goals as set forth in the midterm: 
Goal 1: Quality of junior secondary education providers in target districts increased.
Based on the interviews, surveys and observations by the evaluation team, in the short-term 
the quality of junior secondary providers in target districts did increase as a result of the inputs 
and outputs of DBE3. Teachers and principals expressed their opinions that they appreciated 
the active methods and the materials. Performance scores of students, at least those tested by 
DBE3, did increase as a result of the project. All quantitative targets for this objective were 
‘achieved’ and the project can be said to have achieved moderate success towards this goal. In 
the sense whether project efforts seem to be ‘sticking,’ and that these efforts were being 
institutionalized, the outcome appears to be much less successful; the evaluation team noted 
that effects have been fading since the end of the project. Sustainability is, and must be, an 
integral part of ‘success.’ 
Goal 2: Support to the national inservice training system provided;
The degree of success in achieving this goal is mixed. Support to the national inservice training 
system was ‘provided’; DBE3 did give a large amount of assistance to the GOI in terms of 
training and modules for increasing the quality and relevance of in-service training programs at 
the various levels. Access to quality training was increased and the contributions of innovative 
methods and materials were shown to improve quality and relevance of in-service training. Did 
all this effort fundamentally affect the system? The answer is largely no. The teacher training 
system, no matter how many trainings and materials are provided, needs total reform and that 
requires close collaboration among major stakeholders. Future efforts must expand on the 
meaning of ‘support.’ A graduated professional development in-service program for teachers is 
needed but the locus for that effort is unclear: universities, university ‘centers,’ NGOs, and 
LPMPs are all candidates. 
Goal 3: GOI is better positioned to respond to the needs of the junior secondary education
sector.
To what extent is the GOI in a better position to respond to the needs of junior secondary 
education as a result of the efforts of DBE3? The answer lies in the responsiveness of the 
project to the two sub-objectives of this goal: ‘knowledge and information collected and shared’ 
and’ advocacy and policy dialogue conducted.’ The answer, as with the previous two goals, 
must be qualified. The outputs were largely accomplished; the outcomes (short-term effects on 
society) are at best unclear.
Yes, knowledge and information was collected and shared. In the sense that modules were 
developed, trainings were designed and implemented, information on school and student 
performance was shared, newsletters and reports distributed, and that there was a somewhat
greater awareness of school and district challenges and needs, then this aspect of DBE3 can be 
considered moderately successful. For ‘advocacy and policy dialogue conducted,’ the result was 
similar; in the sense that numerous workshops and showcases were held at various levels the 
project could also be deemed successful. 
Having said that, however, it remains unclear how effective the plethora of newsletters, 
reports, workshops and other outputs were and are. Based on the interviews and 
85
observation, the evaluation team felt that they have had far less impact than the project hoped 
and reported. Is the GOI now better able to respond to the needs of the junior secondary 
sector (because of the project)? The answer is not quantifiable at this point but qualitatively it 
can be said that there is much to be done to improve that responsiveness. The DBE3 efforts 
needed to be coupled with a much greater degree of personal collaboration and communication 
at all levels to be truly effective and successful. It is also unfortunate that the one year gap 
since DBE3’s conclusion is leading to the dilution and fading of these project outputs as well.
86
3. Are there DBE3 activities or best practices that could or should serve as the basis to reform 
national policy?
Yes. The Whole School Approach is one such example. It offers an important strategy for 
quality improvement although not having been fully implemented in DBE3 has limited its utility 
in that project. Integration of life skills processes, active learning and other participatory 
methods all can contribute to GOI educational reform efforts and could influence future policy 
and national standards. The efforts by DBE3 to improve in-service training, including a pilot 
program with two universities, while limited by time and timing, offer best practices in terms of 
methods, and valuable ‘lessons learned’ in terms of the process of professionalizing teachers 
beyond certification. With the future improvements in collaboration and communication, the 
activities noted above all have the potential to influence policy reform.
87
Annex 8: Response from U.S Universities
DBE- US University Partnership Interview Matrix*
Interview Question 1: Name and role in university partnership
Florida State University: Jeffrey Ayala Milligan, Principal Investigator for FSU on DBE II, overseeing budget, activities, ensuring responsiveness to EDC, 
proposing further activities the 4 FSU team members deemed useful, supportive.
University of Massachusetts: James Royer, Principal Investigator for UMAass on DEB II, from September 2005 – end of project in 2011. UMass’s 2 
primary roles: impact evaluation of learning outcomes and train trainers.
University of Pittsburgh: PIs for Pitt- Clementina Acedo, 2005-2007, Maureen W. McClure 2007-2010, John C. Weidman, 2010-2011.Those Interviewed: 
Maureen W. McClure, Principal Investigator; John C. Weidman, PI; and W. James Jacob, Co-PI. Primary Roles: develop a sustainable university partnership, 
the Consortium of Indonesian Universities – Pittsburgh, that could outlive the end of DBE2, to help university leaders institutionalize project reforms in line 
with reform planning.
Interview Question 2: Involvement of your university with DBE? When? Indonesia partners? Role of your university?
Florida State University: Work began in 2006 and continued to the end of 2011. Worked with the universities in Aceh, North Sumatra, Banten, and the 
Open University in Jakarta. In 2010-11 also worked with other universities in Central Java, East Java and South Sulawesi. Worked with expanded number of 
university partners, but most extensively with those in the first 4 provinces mentioned. Principal activities: 
1) trained lecturers associated with teacher education in participatory action research methods. 
2) With the Open University, helped develop online delivery mechanisms for distance education primarily involved in course design and development, not the 
technology. 
3) Provided input to the distance education pilot in Aceh. 
4) Hosted a study tour at project beginning and had 2 Indonesian graduate students from Ache on fellowships.
University of Massachusetts: UMass attempted to upgrade the quality and expertise of the Indonesian education community in psychometrics. Worked 
with a UMass graduate at Padjajaran University in Bandung to develop a test to measure student learning impact. That test was administered in various forms 
over the life of the project. In any given year about 8,000 kids tested and in the first year a pre-test and post-test done, so 16,000 kids tested. A high-level 
standard-setting workshop held in Bandung for representatives from 3 of the major federal agencies in the summer of 2007 to set standards of competency in 
three subjects. Included study tours for 20 high-level Indonesian educators and attendance of summer courses in psychometrics. Three Indonesian graduate 
students attended UMass and successfully completed a master’s degree. Workshops held every summer for Indonesian professors at a variety of universities. 
Little direct involvement with teacher training, but a lot of involvement in training trainers of teachers, and development of instructional materials to increase 
the psychometric expertise in the Indonesian community.
University of Pittsburgh: Work began in 2006 and continued through the no-cost extension to the end of 2011. Originally worked with universities in 
Central Java, East Java and South Sulawesi. This scope was extended with the formation the consortium (KPTIP) of DBE2 rectors in the fall of 2007, based on 
recommendations of USAID, Jakarta. Opinion of rectors: one of the best ways to preserves the gains from DBE2 was to institutionalize reforms through a 
revitalization of the lab school movement to showcase best practices for pre-service teachers and make available for the development of better in-service 
professional preparation programs centered in the university. Kept the Ministry of National Education informed of efforts and several groups of them visited 
Pittsburgh at ministry expense. KPTIP assignments given to the University of Pittsburgh included:
88
(1) the establishment of the journal, Excellence in Higher Education in partnership with IAIN North Sumatra; 
(2) the establishment and maintenance of the KPTIP website with Sebelas Maret University in Surakarta; 
(3) the establishment of the Indonesian National Association of Laboratory Schools (INALS) with the State University of Malang; and 
(4) ongoing Higher Education Administration Training (HEAT) Programs with partner universities throughout the KPTIP. 
Interview Question 3: Which activities most successful to strengthen capacity of Indonesian university?
Florida State University: The most effective: training in classroom action research, emphasized the utility of action research in a variety of settings. Not 
sure what UT has been able to do with the training. Additionally helping them try to transfer part of what they were doing in distance education to online 
delivery. Develop research capacity in the partner universities. Did a series of trainings embedded in a much larger collaborative action research project. 
Teams in each of the partner universities worked on an action research projects culminating in a national conference where research was presented. 
Ultimately published as scholarly articles last December, as the project ended. Included in Journal of Excellence in Higher Education.
University of Massachusetts: The student learning evaluation with the DBE II was best effort. Several things made it work well: 1) development of a test 
designed to measure outcomes relevant to the project, rather than taking an off-the-shelf test that doesn’t fit with what project goals, 2) involvement from 
the beginning, not just brought in to analyze data already gathered. Critical details: sampling plans, test administration procedures, get the data into a usable 
form.
University of Pittsburgh: The most important activities: activities that built and supported the rectors’ consortium, including regular meetings and KPTIP 
website construction, its spinoffs in terms of interests in lab schools and the development of related networks for cooperation, and the development of an 
international journal for higher education management, the Journal of Excellence in Higher Education. EHE is a noted sustained activity now in its third volume 
and features reform efforts not only in Indonesia and the US, but globally as well, with a particular interest in East Asia. It includes interests in the growing 
education reform roles of universities in the face of rapid decentralization. 
Interview Question 4: How did your university work with an Indonesian university contribute to teacher development? What not 
effective?
Florida State University: Emphasized the utility of action research in a variety of setting. Was the most extensive and effective activity FSU engaged in. 
Intensive and extensive contact with a lot of lecturers over the entire period of the project through that activity so was sustained from day one all the way 
through the end of the project.
University of Massachusetts: No answer to this because had quite an impact on trainers of teachers, though some of the impact was fairly ephemeral. 
Difficult to know if attendance at workshop will translate into changes when someone is teaching classes to teachers or potential teachers. The modules were 
directed at people directly involved in test development, not so much in teaching. Goal – enhancement of education system but not one that teachers are 
necessarily going to be the recipients of. Don’t know the extent to which that is going to have an impact on educators.
University of Pittsburgh: Reform has to be approved at top. Engaged senior managers essential for the success of a project, and institutionalization. 
Important to have rectors who are aware of the successful efforts of their faculty members and who see the importance of continuing to provide these 
efforts after the life of the project. The KPTIP gave rectors a place to share ideas with each other and develop advocacy strategies for resource acquisition at 
the ministry level in light of increasing responsibilities for K-12 education reform in a rapidly decentralizing sector. Disagreements between DBE and members 
as to purpose and membership led to degraded version of consortium. 
Interview Question 5: Best practices to inform in-service teacher professional development? Lessons learned?
Florida State University: A sustained engagement with a group of people was really important. Getting people involved in actually doing something –
getting them out of the workshop or the university and into the field doing something together was important. If done over again, would probably do it a lot 
better. Activity didn’t work out as planned. FSU not directly involved in the in-service teacher training that was actually teaching teachers in schools.
University of Massachusetts: No response.
89
University of Pittsburgh: The most important best practice was the absolute necessity to think system wide and institution grounded. Need to 
understand how institutionalization works, i.e. who will fund it after project ends? And how will these programs compete with the myriad of competitive 
programs exported by Australia, Japan, Germany, France and others. In the future, necessary to have a stronger, highly experienced USAID education team 
in place who can adequately supervise large projects in complex environments. 
Interview Question 6: Institutionalization of in-service teacher professional development - how? Most important parties to enhance these 
practices?
Florida State University: Regarding institutionalization: Ministry of Education and District Offices, etc. important players for providing ongoing in-service 
training for teachers, but also for providing pre-service training. University a critical place for institutionalizing improvements. That’s where prospective 
teachers are trained, where they are educated, where they are shaped as they go out into the field. If the universities are not producing decently trained 
teachers, if they aren’t doing their part along with the various agencies in the Ministry of National Education, then they are really working at cross-purposes 
and undercutting one another. Do these [DBE II] activities get brought into and institutionalized within the? They have the capacity to do so, so they are one 
important place for institutionalizing these kinds of innovations.
University of Massachusetts: No direct evidence but I think so. Pretty obvious from looking at the sampled syllabuses that the universities weren’t doing 
things in a way that was consistent with modern psychometric practice. To extent that UMass assisted to modernize the curriculum, impacted quite a few 
universities. Workshops in Banda Aceh, Semarang, and Central Java and participants in each workshop from multiple universities that surrounded the 
university.
University of Pittsburgh: Part of the problem was that the education program people didn’t have much experience in the problems of institutionalization
in rapidly decentralizing conditions. USAID’s model of program-based planning outdated and wasn’t suited to current realities. The management of 
institutions becomes central to institutionalization. The program created great opportunity for universities to start building alternative sources of funding 
through pre-service programs. Requests for DBE2 staff to visit UPitt School of Education to compare similarities of overall professional development 
structures to Indonesian universities not taken into consideration. Failure on whose part? Future work must better account for the rapid changes in 
institutional systems within the country.
Interview Question 7: Best practices for ALFHE? Lessons learned from DBE participation in this effort?
Florida State University: Not directly engaged in that. Current evaluation effort is important because many wonderful things that were done that people 
liked and appreciated. Critical question: what kind of lasting improvement or changes did this make? With ALFHE, now a year later, is it making a difference in 
those universities where they received that training? Hopefully it is, and the same thing with the action research training that we did.
University of Massachusetts: No knowledge. 
University of Pittsburgh: Best practices alone cannot institutionalize programs in highly competitive environments with scarce resources.
Interview Question 8: What best practices from in-service prof. dev. to strengthen pre-service teacher preparation?
Florida State University: The common theme is active learning/action research is engagement. One of the most striking aspects of teacher education in 
Indonesia is how remote it seems to be from education and schools. The lecturers have an S1 degree and they are training people to be teachers, but they 
have never been teachers themselves. Had academic training in the subject matter, not in pedagogy, not in education. Rarely go out into schools or 
collaborate with teachers so one wonders how useful they can actually be in preparing people to teach. They stand in front of a class and talk at them. Trying 
to break out of this and teach people other approaches to teaching is one of the most important achievements of DBE II because [project implementers] 
were doing a lot with the modules and training and the active learning in schools to get away from that. If not changing the culture of the institution that’s 
providing that training to teachers, it’s less likely to take hold. How to go about creating that active research culture in schools and getting people teaching 
the content knowledge, so that they can figure out what a teacher’s life is like in the classroom? Due to hierarchical [framework] lecturers at the university 
are supposedly more knowledgeable and superior to someone who’s teaching in the elementary school, even though may have essentially the same degree. 
90
Ministry’s expectations and universities’ expectations were unrealistic. Want to produce international quality research, but all have same expectations of 
these institutions, no matter what the institution or the level of training of the lecturers. A significant percentage of lecturers just have bachelor’s degrees. A 
significant number have master’s degrees. A tiny minority have PhDs. Lecturers don’t have the training to do research. The action research training of FSU is 
a more practical and realistic form of research that people at various levels can do, but the differentiation of roles is something that they’re going to have to 
work out if they really want to produce, if they really want to develop research capacity.
University of Massachusetts: Offered a series of workshops in two very important topics related to that: performance-based assessments on standard 
setting to begin with and data analysis. Those workshops were offered to university-level educators in a number of different settings in Indonesia but no 
knowledge of continued usage of information.
University of Pittsburgh: Again, note the chronic focus on programs with no mentions of the importance of institutions and systems.
Interview Question 9: What future resources needed at Indonesian universities to strengthen own capacity as pre-service provider?
Florida State University: Universities need schedules that allow them to be more reflective about their practice or to conduct their own inquiries into
their practice. Relationships with FSU were assets of which attempts to continue to cultivate them are being made, even after the project ended. Indonesian 
universities are incredibly in-bred, typically the faculty are graduates of that institution. The kinds of relationships that they were able to develop with FSU, 
with Pitt, and probably less so with UMass, were helpful and introduced new ideas. They were all always very interested and very enthusiastic about these 
relationships and about what they could learn.
University of Massachusetts: No response.
University of Pittsburgh: No response.
Interview Question: How did the Indonesian university partnership benefit your university?
Florida State University: FSU benefitted enormously and learned a lot by being involved in this project. Developed relationships with institutions, signed 
student exchange agreements with a couple of university partners, signed cooperative agreements with a number of the other partners, have had at least 2 
visitors from 2 of the universities who have come to visit FSU on their own. Received graduate students, two directly from the project with USAID money 
but all the others indirectly. Open University has sent several students here, by word of mouth of students have had directly or indirectly from the project a 
dozen graduate students come to FSU for degrees. Some have finished and gone home, others are still here, and from them, others come, so has been a 
steady stream of graduate students. FSU has sent a couple of students to partner universities in Aceh through student exchange programs and one graduate 
student taught there for a year. Enormously beneficial for FSU. DBE 2 first project in probably 10 years. So an enormous [boost] leading to development of 
other projects, and work with other projects.
University of Massachusetts: No response.
University of Pittsburgh: No response.
Interview Question 11: How effective was the working relationship with Indonesian universities?
Florida State University: It varies. Some better than others. Much depends on the initiative and leadership in the universities. A lot depends on expanding 
awareness. Good relationships with many of the university partners developed and continued cultivation, but absent some specific activity, it may not be as 
active as probably both parties would like. Issue: what’s the capacity of institutions to really make use of the student exchange agreements? Three issues: an 
interest in cooperating, something specific to cooperate on, and then finding the right funding to support that. Which is best: to put a lot of money into a 
handful of individuals who return and become critical figure in home university or to go off to do trainings that are relatively brief. Time and sustained 
engagement needed to change habits and practices and institutional cultures.
University of Massachusetts: Hoped for development of some joint programs with Indonesian universities, create a situation where there would be 
exchange of faculty and students both ways. Now funding joint programs is major issue. Also eager to get Indonesian students over here for a funded PhD 
program but couldn’t be worked out on their end [family visa issues]. 
91
Were partnerships developed and sustained or just doing workshops and then leaving? All of the planning had been done through one of the DBE II regional 
officers. No idea [how] universities were selected to host. UMass no partnering with those universities. Participated in a sort of formal dog and pony show - 
see the Rector, talk to some deans, maybe visit a department or two and then do our workshop. In terms of the fellows that came to U Mass to study, were 
you in partnership with their universities at all or were they identified through a different process? In Banda Aceh, had money for more participants than 
came over. One, it was shortly after the tsunami and every university in the world was there looking for students to bring to their own country so people 
had been culled over. The other issue is language. UMass requires passing the TOEFL which was difficult particularly in Banda Aceh. Only one person could 
meet the requirements. The others came from the Jakarta area, where much easier to find people. Had money to fund 2 but neither one of them worked 
through or were part of the university. Both were university graduates who had master’s degrees from an Indonesia university.
University of Pittsburgh: No response.
Interview Question 12: Role of Indonesian universities in sustainability of DBE initiatives for professional development?
Florida State University: From limited perspective of FSU involvement, universities are a critical component in institutionalizing and sustaining changes in 
practice. Example: lecturers of university were participants in the in-service teacher training and the module development, and that’s one place where it really 
seemed to take. Is where teachers are trained before they go out into the field and bring change to the culture of schools. Past practices in universities and 
lecturing and that sort of thing have really institutionalized that culture [of being told what to do, centralized control, etc.]. Will be difficult to change the 
culture of schools of a country of 250 million people, but maybe starting in places like universities would be one place try it.
University of Massachusetts: Some lasting impact probably in curriculum changes at the university level as a consequence of the training and development 
of the instructional. Fellows at U Mass received some psychometric expertise that simply wasn’t available anyplace else in Indonesia, received information that 
no one else there knew which could have a lasting impact. At the federal level things really in a state of flux. Some people who UMass worked with badly 
needed direction. Two issues Indonesia is struggling with: 1) development of a national test and 2) common standards for that test. Wanted to have a clear 
standard of student competency and non-competent but extremely controversial decision in Indonesia to have same standard for all students (urban, rural, 
poor, etc.). During study tours to UMass, participants received a view of same process in MA to pass standards. A political process but very controversial. 
These decision-makers from Indonesia took away from a real sense of what need to be done politically to make some changes that would impact Indonesia as 
a whole.
University of Pittsburgh: No response.
Interview Question 13: How to improve profession development relationship between Indonesian university and similar future projects?
Florida State University: Make sure that universities are part of and partners with projects [like DBE]. Millions of teachers not qualified with S1, so it’s a 
huge in-service training challenge. How do you provide the courses, the training, and upgrade teachers in the field so they meet that requirement? Working 
with the universities, or at least UT anyway, so they could award credit for training that the teachers received was pretty innovative and a new experience for 
the Indonesian universities, was something that was good and useful.
University of Massachusetts: Sense was that [DBE] was really good at it - quite impressed with the extent to which they knew the critical people in the 
universities.Anything in particular come to mind that they did very well? Vague sense that DBE really knew what they were doing with respect to the political 
aspects of Indonesia universities. Knew how to maintain important relationships in the environment of Islamic/non-Islamic universities and seemingly 
conflicting educational goals. Had a really impressive staff, almost uniformly Indonesian speakers. Some sense they had some problems in the central office 
with some of the staff, but in regional offices things worked out pretty well.
University of Pittsburgh No response.
Interview Question 14: Contribution of Indonesian University Consortium to improvement and continuation of teacher professional 
development?
Florida State University: Has potential. The huge question is what happens to it once USAID funding dries up. Not clear how much of what was discussed 
92
and planned at those meetings actually happened in the institutions. A good idea and there’s potential there. What kind of continued activities if funding 
available to help improve and continue teachers’ professional development? Serve as a supportive community for continuing to build on some of the things 
that they were engaged in with the DBE II project. They’ve got the beginnings of a scholarly organization[through the Journal of EHE], a scholarly society 
where they can continue to do research together, come together and share their work in conferences, publish it in the journal or publish it in other journals. 
That’s something that they could do and they could support. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the consortium.
University of Massachusetts: No response.
University of Pittsburgh: No response.
Interview Question 15: Did your university evaluate the partnership program with Indonesian universities? Can you share what you 
learned from evaluation? What changes being considered as a result?
Florida State University: No formal evaluation of the whole project. Have articles and drafts as data, interview notes with some of the participants so 
have material for evaluation. Basic structure of implementation makes sense. Opportunity to replicate [action research] one more time in the last year of the 
project with the other universities in the other provinces. Had a core of people to work with the entire thing but a many people come and go. The gaps 
between activities were often too long, at least in the initial part. Doubt that the majority of the people who received the training will continue to do 
research to a significant extent because of the conditions that they are working in; however some people have continued.
University of Massachusetts: No response.
University of Pittsburgh: No response.
Interview Question 16: Last comments?
Florida State University: One interesting and important thing found is engagement with the state Islamic Studies institutes. Is critical and is a significant 
component of education in Indonesia because caters to the core two quintiles of the population and the rural population. They have an enormous amount of 
creditability in villages in rural areas. They all want to develop into universities; they all want to develop secular programs. They all want to develop math 
programs and biology programs and psychology programs, etc. Going forward, that’s going to be a really important area for collaboration with the Indonesian 
universities. If USAID really wants to target the rural areas and the poor, those are the institutions to work with.
University of Massachusetts: No response.
University of Pittsburgh: No response.
* Information for Florida State University and the University of Massachusetts has been condensed from telephone interviews. Information from the University of 
Pittsburgh is a direct response to this matrix in an on-line format. 
93
Annex 9: Responses from Indonesian Universities 
Highlights of Interviews with Indonesian Universities 
Overview of DBE involvement
DBE1 established partnerships with four universities: UNM Makassar, UM Malang, UPI Bandung, 
and Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, in order to develop the capacity of a small number of 
university staff as service providers for distict level and school level programs. In the role of
service providers, the universities provided assistance to district and school officials in the use 
of the planning and budgeting tools of district financial analysis (AKPK), finance management 
(SIMP-K), calculation of costs for Minimum Service Standards and access (PBPSAP), strategic 
planning (RENSTRA), accountability statements (LAKIP), annual work plans (renja), and school 
unit cost analysis (BOSP).
10 
DBE2 established close working partnerships with 15 Indonesian universities and the Open 
University (Universitas Terbuka/UT) to improve their capacity as in-service training providers 
and increase the professional capacity of teachers. University faculty were involved in the 
following DBE2 activities in varying degrees: Training Package Development and Adaptation, 
accredited teacher training through on-line courses, Instructional Video Development,
University Working Group (UWG), Consortium of Indonesian Universities-Pittsburgh 
(Konsorsium Perguruan Tinggi Indonesia- Pittsburgh/KPTIP), Active Learning for Higher 
Education Program (ALFHE), Distance Education Pilot, and Digital Library. The following is the 
explanation of each question which is extracted from the highlights of university interviews. As 
a result of the partnership with these universities, 26 active learning–based training packages 
were developed, providing some 18,000 primary school teachers and principals with university￾accredited, on-the-job professional development across 113 school clusters in seven 
provinces.11
DBE3 partnered with universities through engagement of a small group of individuals in the 
provincial BTL program for training of facilitators and teachers and in the Classroom Action 
Research program. In the final year of the project, DBE3 implemented a more intensive pilot 
program with UNNES Semarang and UNM Makassar to encourage lecturers to adopt and make 
use of some of the key project programs and approaches in order to improve the quality of 
both their pre- and in-service teacher training courses. In year four of the program, DBE 3 also 
involved a number of lecturers in a classroom action research program.12
Description of DBE2 projects/activities
Indonesian universities paired with U.S. universities to participate in the following activities. The 
university faculty members were variously involved as trainees, facilitators, and/or service 
 
10RTI International (2011). More Effective Decentralized Wducation Management and Governance (DBE 1) Final Report. 11 Education Development Center (2012) Final Report (Vol. 1) DBE 2 Project 2005-2011. 12 Save the Children and IRD (2012) Decentralized Basic Education Three (DBE3) Relevant Education for Youth June 7, 2005 – 
December 31, 2011.
94
providers. Some of the materials produced by DBE continue to be used by lecturers in their 
classes or used by universities in provision of services to clients. 
Training Package Development and Adaptation: Lecturers were involved on Module Development 
Teams (MDT) along with school practitioners to design, develop, and implement training 
packages in active learning. An unintended result of this teamwork was that lecturers gained 
valuable experience and insight into the realities of education at school-level. 
Accredited teacher training: The training modules were accredited by partner universities, 
allowing teachers and other educators who participated and completed all of the course 
requirements to earn credits for certain relevant subjects. This intervention was intended to 
assist teachers to pursue their Bachelor degree qualifications while they continued teaching. 
The credits assigned by universities per package ranged from two to eight SKS. 
Instructional Video Development: Intended to improve capacity in educational media development, 
this activity was led by the instructional video development team of the Open University and 
resulted in production of 33 scripts. Seven universities were involved in this activity: Universitas 
Negeri Malang (UM), Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM), Universitas Negeri Surabaya 
(UNESA), Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) North Sumatra, Universitas Negeri Medan 
(UNIMED), Syiah Kuala University (UNSYIAH), Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES). 
University Working Group (UWG): The establishment of this forum was intended to promote
universities’ communication and information-sharing about the DBE activities. The forum 
members consisted of university contact persons of each partner university, university advisor 
of DBE2, representatives from MOEC, MORA, KEMKOKESRA, and USAID. They conducted 
meeting or workshop at least once a year.
Consortium of Indonesian Universities-Pittsburgh (Konsorsium Perguruan Tinggi Indonesia￾Pittsburgh/KPTIP): The development of this consortium aimed to establish a vehicle to promote 
coordination and communication among Indonesian and U.S. university members; encourage 
partnership and collaboration among consortium members in Indonesia and the United States; 
and facilitate the sharing of knowledge, experience, and expertise of DBE activities specifically 
and education reform initiatives generally.
Journal of Excellence in Higher Education: In partnership with the University of Pittsburgh, the 
start-up of this professional journal was the result of considerable initiative demonstrated by 
IAIN North Sumatra. The journal is a peer-reviewed professional publication which provides a 
forum to present university research as well as current education reforms efforts in Indonesia 
and globally. 
Classroom Action Research: With support from Florida State University, this activity built 
capacity of participating universities to understand the utility of action research to investigate 
identified issues in education. Resulting research efforts were reviewed and published in the 
Journal of Excellence in Higher Education. 
Active Learning for Higher Education Program (ALFHE): ALFHE was designed to familiarize 
university lecturers with active learning strategies. The intervention had four main components, 
namely (1) the Active Learning in School (ALIS) workshop and accompanying school visit, (2) 
the Active Learning in Higher Education (ALIHE) workshop, (3) implementation and supervision 
95
of Active Learning in the Class, and (4) portfolio assessment and student feedback. Exposing 
university lecturers to active learning methods was intended to build internal capacity of those 
lecturers who were responsible for pre-service teacher preparation. 
Distance Education Pilot: Two pilot activities were implemented in this intervention, namely pilot 
1 which used online learning as the forum to develop skills of school-based coaches to help 
teachers integrate technology-based instruction into classrooms, and pilot 2 which focused on 
participation of university faculty in online course design and professional development for 
university lecturers. 
Digital Library: The Digital Library was developed by DBE 2 and managed with the assistance of 
UT. The library housed DBE 2 products and best practices intended as learning resources for 
teachers, school principals, and other education personnel. The web address of the Digital 
Library is www.pustakapendidik.org. and is now hosted by eight university partners.
FINDINGS
The following information is based on interviews (face-to-face and by telephone) with these 
universities:
• UPI Bandung
• UNNES Semarang
• UNIMED Medan
• UNM Makassar
• IAIN Walisongo
• IAIN Medan
• UNISMUH
• UNESA Surabaya
The following are highlights of interviews/FGDs with university faculty members: 
• All universities that participated in ALFHE claimed that it was the most effective of the DBE 
university activities. The active learning methodologies appear to be successful with 
university students also. ALFHE continues to be rolled-out to other universities, and in 
several universities, has been inserted to the Educator Professional Development Institute 
(LP3) as a requirement for all newly-hired young lecturers.
The ALFHE opened the lecturers’ mind about how to effectively prepare student teachers. 
As they noted, the university can only support change in teachers’ behavior if they know the 
issues at schools. They use active learning in their own classes and find the use of 
environment, contextual learning, different seating arrangements, mentoring, and peer 
teaching effective to increase student learning. Students appreciate the ‘freedom to learn,’ 
make more use of the library for research, and employ higher order thinking to learn. 
Lecturers themselves have had to do more learning so that they can ‘stay ahead’ of their 
students in classrooms where active learning methods are employed. They find the 
authentic assessment techniques of active learning pedagogy fair and accurate ways to 
evaluate student progress. ALFHE is integrated to the training on PEKERTI (teaching and 
96
learning pedagogy) and applied approach for university lecturers. ALFHE is sometimes 
required by the Rectors to be used in the Instructional Skill Enhancement Program for 
instructors using the DBE modules.
• From the DBE as a whole, the other most effective activities were trainings of university 
service providers on planning and budgeting tools (DBE1), module development (DBE2), 
and BTL and Classroom Action Research (DBE3). 
1. DBE Partnership Problems/Challenges: 
• DBE programs were not synchronized with the university programs, curricular plans, and 
budgeting process causing difficulty for universities to participate fully in the DBE. 
• Funding must come more quickly for some universities to efficiently implement training 
programs. Budgets must be prepared a year in advance to implement such programs. 
• The accredited teacher training was not a strong activity as the participating teachers only 
received four university credits towards certification, not a degree and the program was not 
expanded enough to provide a full course of credits needed for a degree.
• The distance learning initiative to enable teachers in the field to participate on-line towards 
certification had limited success as the program did not mesh with the university plans for 
expansion of on-line programs; therefore the activity was not sustained. Participating 
university lecturers however were very happy with their increased capacity to develop on￾line courses. 
• The Journal for Excellence in Higher Education which is the location for publishing action 
research results is not accredited by the Directorate of Higher Education due to the lack of 
international editors.
• The university consortium founded in partnership with 15 universities and Pittsburgh 
University may not be as strong as the U.S partner perceives. From Indonesian lecturers, 
evaluators heard concerns about leadership, funding, and a weak strategic plan which seem 
to influence its effective functioning.
• Lecturers voiced their opinion that study tours just for senior university staff may not be as 
useful in building capacity and strengthening programs. They opined that lecturers who 
teach should also benefit from study tours as they could learn and then input practical skills 
and knowledge to their own instructional methods that they had learned while overseas. 
2. Sustainability and Replication Models
• UNM: The Center for Effective Schools is a university-based service provider in education 
which could be used as a replication model for in-service teacher preparation. The model 
provides on-demand services for in-service training to districts to improve teacher capacity. 
The Center has also worked with LPMP and P4TKs staffs but not on a regular basis. 
Although the Center has made a strong start, the Center operates with three, part-time 
directors. This staffing scheme may work well in the short run when the Center is just 
starting but in the medium-term the Center should consider putting into place a full-time 
director to actively generate and manage business, and develop programs for the Center. 
97
• UPI: The program trained 26 lecturers in the DBE1 methods and program who in turn then 
taught those methods and procedures to 500 undergraduate students. The students are
then sent out in groups of 10 to neighboring schools to assist school principals in developing 
school work plans. They also assist in developing the data as the basis for school planning 
and provide leadership guidance for the principal. The university lectures provide 
mentoring to the students and the schools.
3. Recommendations: 
• Formal relationships, in the form of MOUs, between universities and projects are necessary 
to identify roles and responsibilities of each partner, especially commitment and 
mobilization of financial resources to support participation.
• For future partnerships, the universities request to have planning meetings a year in advance 
to ensure that future programs are aligned with university plans.
• It is important to identify university programs which can usefully be strengthened using the
materials and technical assistance available.
• Future programs needs to focus at the district level and work only with committed 
partners. District and provincial partnerships need to involve local governments in every 
stage of the planning and implementation and ensure that the initial orientation of the 
program is very clear. MOUs should be revisited yearly. Local governments need to build in 
budgets a year in advance and provincial and district governments need to be in agreement 
on program goals and outcomes.
• The university should make efforts to improve their own capacity by:
• Periodical revision of their curriculum,
• Capacity building of the lecturers both in pedagogy and content of subject 
matters,
• Periodical meetings or workshops for lecturers from the same field of study for 
sharing knowledge and best practices,
• Dissemination of ALFHE to all faculty members,
• PRIORITAS should build and share extensively a portal for ‘best practices’ in teaching and
learning at all levels of education institutions.
• PRIORITAS should carefully consider times/dates for training programs (maybe in closer 
consultation with the university) to align with academic calendars and other agendas of the 
universities. 
• Research grants for university teachers to participate in Action Research would be helpful.
• To make partnerships with the government education system to support teacher 
professional development, universities suggests the ideal connection would be cooperation 
between the LP3 and the DINAS to work with the schools.
• Universities suggest that DBE activities be continued in future programming as they are 
appropriate and useful to increase teachers’ competency. The recommendation from 
universities strongly suggests that new programs need to discuss with Rectors a year in 
advance to ensure the best match between plans, budgets, and curricula.
• The Principals Working Groups can be a bridge to universities to provide professional 
development services to schools. 
98
• Training should be based on training needs assessment of individual teachers. The need for 
training is the gap between expected competencies and actual competencies acquired by 
individual teachers. Therefore (i) the standards for teacher competence (from National 
Standard of Education, NSE) that consists of four competencies (namely pedagogy, cognitive, 
social, and personal) needs to be operationalized up to a ‘measurable measure,’ and (ii) 
individual teachers’ capacity in the four competencies needs to be measured. The results 
of the Ujian Kompetensi Guru (UKG) for pedagogy and cognitive competence have been 
used as the measurement, however due to claims of inaccuracy of the UKG to measure 
pedagogy competence, effective measurement tools for the competencies of pedagogy, 
social, and personal are still needed. 
4. Lessons learned
• Universities should be more open to innovation and new approaches in teaching and 
learning. They should sometimes look out of the box and challenge themselves.
• Development of a service provider facility at a university takes time.
• Partnership programs needed to be reviewed and renewed each year. 
• University service providers really need long periods of training and mentoring to become 
fully effective in their roles.
99
Annex 10: Matrix of schools 
Legend for School Matrix
1. School classification: Public or madrasah (private or state)
2. Type of School by geographic and socioeconomic classification: urban, rural, or poor.
3. DBE status: partner, replicated, or non-DBE school.
4. Are active learning methods present in school based on following observable factors at time 
of visit: wall displays, student seating arrangement, teacher classroom behavior, student behavior, 
and presence of learning materials. Rating of mostly: 65% or more of classrooms display 3 or more 
factors. Partial: 40-65% of classrooms display 2 or more factors. No: few or no observable active 
learning factors apparent. 
5. Characteristics of school principals: sex and number of years in current post.
6. Information about supervisors: regularly / irregularly - frequency of visits to schools based 
on the requirement of National Standard of once a semester. Helpful / so-so: interviewee’s 
judgment on usefulness of supervisor’s visits to the school. 
7. Identification of principal’s knowledge or use of DBE activities currently in school: From 
DBE1: SBM: use of school-based management to develop school plans. SC: the school committee 
is actively involved at school through financial, in-kind or other support. Vision? principal has a 
vision to develop the school which addresses students/ learning issues and appears to be actively 
committed to achieve it. DBE2: AL: Active learning: includes activities such as subject content 
knowledge, lesson planning, assessment measures and specific teacher/student behaviors (such as 
questioning, problem-solving, guidance & feedback, student voice, student reflection, collaborative 
activities), etc. DALI: Development of Active Learning with ICT: includes improved staff use of 
technology, media, development of teaching aids, research, and student ICT use. CRC: Cluster 
Resource Centers: knowledge and use of locations for training, accessing resources, sharing with 
peers, developing learning materials, etc. DBE3: BTL: Better Teaching and Learning, modules 1-4. 
ICT: how to Use ICT in BTL. KS cap: increasing capacity of school principals (Kepala Sekolah). 
8. Do DINAS education staffs continue to use DBE tools and processes to develop the schools and 
train teachers? Y / N
9. Who provides teacher training (TT) /continuous professional development (CFD) to teachers? 
KKM: Principals' Working Group, KKG: Teachers' Working Group, Supervisors, Other: training 
received occasionally from university lecturers, subject matter specialists from DINAS, LPMP, 
principals. Independently: teachers expected to work on their own (through books, internet or 
share with their friends/peers) to learn and keep themselves up-dated. 
10. University partnerships: In the opinion of the interviewee, do partnerships with universities offer 
an opportunity to provide professional development/ teacher training for school staffs? Y / N 
100
DBE 1 DBE 2 DBE 3 9. Who provides TT/CPD?
StatePrivate State Urban Rural Poor Prtnr Replic Non MostlyPartial No M F In post Reg IrregHelpfulSo-so SBM Vision? AL ICT CRC BTL 1-4 ICT KS cap KKM KKG SupersOther Possible No
Banten Yes No Yes No
Primary School
SDS Sukasari 4 x x x x x 2yrs x x x x x x x
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Jr. Secondary
MTsN 1 Tangerang x x x x x 6mon x x x x x x
SMP Nusa Putra x x x x x x x x x x
MTS Duarl Putra x x x x x x x x x
Total 1 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1
1. School Classificat2. Type 7. Know/use DBE activities 
Madrasah 3. DBE Status 4. Active Learning? 5. Principals 6. Supervisors visit?
8. DINAS 
use DBE 
tools? 
pend
ently
10. Universit 
Active SC?
Banten Primary and Junior Secondary School Information
• Data are from one day field test of interview guides and process so may not be complete. Date of visit: July 30, 2012
101
DBE 1 DBE 2 DBE 3 9. Who provides TT
StatePrivate State Urban Rural Poor Prtnr Replic Non MostlyPartial No M F In pos Reg Irreg Helpfu So-so SBM Vision? AL DALI CRC BTL 1-4 ICT KS cap KKM KKG Supers Possible No
Jr. Secondary Yes No Yes No
Purworego
MTsN Bener x x x x x x 1.5yrs x x x x
SMPN 19 Purworejo x x x x x x 4yrs x x x x x x x
SMPN 6 Purworejo x x x x x x x x x
MTsN Loano x x x x x 5 yrs x x x x x x x x
SMPN 31 Purworejo x x x x x 6 mon x x
Purwarego N = 5 Total 3 0 2 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 0 1 0 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 1
Boyolali
MTsN Cepogo x x x x x x 6yrs x x x x x
SMPN 1 Cepogo x x x x x 1 mon x x x x
SMPN 2 Ngemplak x x x x x x 1 mon x x x x x
SMPN 1 Klego x x x x x 1 yr x x x x x x
MTsN Ngandong x x x x x 4 yrs x x x x
MTsN Sambi x x x x x 3.5yrs x x x x x
Boyolali N = 6 Total 3 0 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 0 1 5 5 1 0 2 0 1 2 4 1 5 4 3 3 0 1 0 2 1 0
Kudus
MTsN 2 Mejobo Kudos x x x x x x 6 yrs x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 2 Jekulo x x x x x x 2yrs x x x x x
MTs Nurul Ulum x x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 3 Jekulo x x x x x 5yrs x x x x
SMP 1 Bae x x x x x x x x x
MTs Banat x x x x x 1yr x x x
Kudus N = 6 Total 3 2 1 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 4 4 3 5 0 1 0 2 1 3
Demak
MTs Gajah Demak x x x x x x 6 mon x x x x x x
MTs NU Demak x x x x x x 2yrs x x x x x
MTs Raudlatul Mu'alimin x x x x x x 10yrs x x x x x
SMPN 1 Mijen Demak x x x x x 8 yrs x x x x x x x
SMPN 1 Mranggen x x x x x 5yrs x x x x x x x
SMPN 5 Demak x x x x x 8rys x x x x x x
Demak N = 6 Total 3 3 0 1 5 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 1 0 2 0 3 1 3 3 4 5 4 3 1 1 0 2 1 3
N = 23 Grand Total 12 5 6 6 17 10 8 8 7 5 5 13 19 5 0 7 0 6 6 12 6 15 17 12 14 1 3 0 7 4 7
Madrasah 3. DBE Status 4. Active Learning? 5. Principals 6. Supervisors visit? 8. DINAS 
Active SC? use DBE 
Inde
pend
10. Universit 
Central Java Junior Secondary School Information
• Interview guides and process were modified after Central Java visit to include Question #8; therefore data for this question are missing. Data in 
Questions 6-10 may be incomplete due to non-responses. Dates of field visit: Central Java: August 1-12, 2012.
102
DBE 1 DBE 2 DBE 3 9. Who provides TT/CPD?
StatePrivate State Urban Rural Poor Prtnr Replic Non MostlyPartial No M F In post Reg Irreg Helpfu So-so SBM Vision? AL ICT CRC BTL 1-4 ICT KS cap KKM KKG Supersother? Possible No
Primary Schools Yes No Yes No
Purworego
SDN Kaliurip x x x x x 2 mon x x x x x x x x
MIN Bener x x x x x x 4 yrs x x x x x x x x x
MI Glagah Malang x x x x x x 1 yr x x x x x
SDN Loano x x x x x 9 yrs x x x x x
SDN Maron 1 x x x x x x 8 yrs x x x x x x x x
N = 5 Total 3 1 1 0 5 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 5 0 2 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 2 1 1
Boyolali
MI Gunung Wijil x x x x x x 1 yr x x x x
MI Ringin x x x x x x 1 mon x x x x x x x x
SD Sukabumi x x x x x 2 mon x x x x
SD Paras 1 x x x x x 1 yr x x x x x x x x
SD Randusari x x x x x x 4 yrs x x x x x x x x
MI Kopen x x x x x x 3yrs x x
N = 6 Total 3 3 0 0 6 4 2 1 3 0 2 4 5 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 0 3 1 1
Kudus
MI Manafiul Ulum x x x x x N/A x x x
SD N 1 Kaliwungu x x x x x 12 yrs x x x x x
MI Sidorekso x x x x x x N/A x x x x x
SDN 1 Gondosari x x x x x 6 yrs x x x x x x x x x x
SDN 3 Prambatan Kid x x x x x x 3 mon x x
MI Tsamratul Wathon x x x x x 7 yrs x x x x x x x
N = 6 Total 3 3 0 2 4 2 2 1 3 0 1 5 5 1 2 2 0 4 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 5 1 2
Demak
MI Wonosalm x x x x x x 7 yrs x x x x x x x x x x x
SDN 13 Bintoro x x x x x 3.5 yrs x x x x x x x x x x
SDN Sidomulyo 2 x x x x x 2.5 yrs x x x x x x
MI Sultan Fatah x x x x x N/A x x x x
MI Tanwirudholam x x x x x x 12 yrs x x x
SDN Cabean 2 x x x x x 2 yrs x x x x x x x x
N = 6 Total 3 3 0 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 1 2 2 1 4 1 3 1 3 3 3 4 3 4 1 0 5 0 2
N = 23 Grand Total 12 10 1 5 18 11 8 4 11 3 6 14 17 5 8 9 4 14 6 12 6 8 11 10 12 8 9 2 0 15 3 6
3. DBE Status 8. DINAS 10. Universit 
use DBE 
4. Active Learning? 5. Principals
1. School Classificat2. Type 7. Know/use DBE activities 
Active SC?
Madrasah 6. Supervisors visit? Inde
pend
Central Java Primary Schools Information
• Interview guides and process were modified after Central Java visit to include Question #8; therefore data for this question are missing. Data in Questions 
6-10 may be incomplete due to non-responses. Dates of field visit: Central Java: August 1-12, 2012.
103
DBE 1 DBE 2 DBE 3 9. Who provides TT/CPD?
StatePrivate State Urban Rural Poor Prtnr Replic Non MostlyPartial No M F In pos Reg Irreg HelpfulSo-so SBM Vision? AL DALI CRC BTL 1-4 ICT KS cap KKM KKG SupersOther? Possible No
Jr. Secondary Yes No Yes No
Binjai
MTs Al Washliyah x x x x x x x x x x x x
MTsN Binjai x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
SMP 9 x x x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 10 x x x x x x 1 yr x x x x x x
SMPN 11 x x x x x 1yr x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 2 x x x x x 3yr x x x x x x x x
SMPN 7 x x x x x 6mo x x x x x x x x x x
Binjai N = 7 Total 6 1 0 6 1 1 5 2 0 1 2 4 5 2 6 0 1 5 1 0 0 2 7 5 5 5 0 0 1 6 5 1 4 2
Taput
MTsN Peanornor x x x x x x 6yrs x x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 1 Siborong x x x x x 2yrs x x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 1 Sipoholon x x x x x 3yrs x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 1Taratung x x x x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 4 Taratung x x x x x 10yrs x x x x x x x
Taput N =5 Total 4 0 1 4 1 1 5 0 0 2 3 0 3 2 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 5 5 4 4 0 1 1 4 3 0 5 0
N = 12 Grand Total 10 1 1 10 2 2 10 2 0 3 5 4 8 4 10 1 2 7 1 0 1 4 12 10 9 9 1 2 10 8 1 9 2
5. Principals 8. DINAS 
use DBE 
3. DBE Status
Active SC?
6. Supervisors visit? Inde
pend
10. Universit 
1. School Classificat2. Type 7. Know/use DBE activities 
Madrasah 4. Active Learning? 
North Sumatra Junior Secondary School Information
• Data in Questions 6-10 may be incomplete due to non-responses. Dates of field visits: North Sumatra: September 6-16, 2012.
104
DBE 1 DBE 2 DBE 3 9. Who provides TT/CPD?
StatePrivate State Urban Rural Poor Prtnr Replic Non MostlyPartial No M F In post? Reg Irreg Helpfu So-so SBM Vision? AL ICT CRC BTL 1-4 ICT KS cap KKM KKG SupersOther Possible No
Primary Schools Yes No Yes No
Binjai
MIN 1 Binjai x x x x x 7yrs x x x x x x x x x x
MIS Al Muqorobbin x x x x x 6yr x x x x x x x x x x x N/A N/A
MIS Ikwanul Mukminin x x x x x 3yr x x x x x x x x x x
SDN 020255 x x x x x 1yr x x x x x x x
SDN 020256 x x x x x 12yr x x x x x x x x x
SDN 020260 x x x x x 6yrs x x x x x
SDN 020263 x x x x x 7yr x x x x x x x x x x x x N/A N/A
SDN 023894 x x x x x x 3yrs x x x x x x x x
SDN 023901 x x x x x 12yrs x x x x x x x x NA
SDN 028288 x x x x x x N/A x x x N/A N/A x x
Binjai N = 10 Total 8 1 1 9 1 2 8 0 2 3 6 1 5 5 10 0 0 10 6 5 3 5 9 7 3 9 0 10 1 2 1 3 1
Taput
MIN Peanornor x x x x x x 4yrs x x x x x x N/A x
SDN 173100 x x x x x 6yr N/A N/A N/A N/A x x x N/A N/A x x x x
SDN 173102 x x x x x 1yr x x x N/A N/A x N/A N/A x x x N/A N/A
SDN 173104 x x x x x x 8mon x x x x x x x x
SDN 173119 x x x x x x 6yr x x x x x x x N/A x x x
SDN 173133 x x x x x 6yrs x x x x x x x x x
SDN 178492 x x x x x 3yr N/A N/A N/A N/A x x x N/A N/A x x N/A N/A
Taput N = 7 Total 6 0 1 3 4 3 5 2 0 1 5 1 4 3 4 1 1 4 5 1 5 3 6 3 0 1 0 0 7 1 2 5 3 1
N = 17 Grand Total 14 1 2 12 5 5 13 2 2 4 11 2 9 8 14 1 1 14 11 6 8 8 15 10 3 10 0 0 17 1 4 6 6 2
 
use DBE 
tools? 
pend
ently
10. Universit 
1. School Classificat2. Type 7. Know/use DBE activities 
Madrasah 3. DBE Status 4. Active Learning? 5. Principals 6. Supervisors visit?
Active SC?
North Sumatra Primary School Information
• Data in Questions 6-10 may be incomplete due to non-responses. Dates of field visits: North Sumatra: September 6-16, 2012.
105
DBE 1 DBE 2 DBE 3 9. Who provides TT/CPD?
StatePrivate State Urban Rural Poor Prtnr Replic Non MostlyPartial No M F In pos Reg Irreg HelpfulSo-so SBM Vision? AL DALI CRC BTL 1-4 ICT KS cap KKM KKG SupersOther? Possible No
Jr. Secondary Yes No Yes No
Pangkep
MtsN Ma'rang x x x x x 2yr x x x x x x x x x
SMPN Pangkajenne x x x x x 6 x x x x x x
 Pangkep N = 2 Total 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0
Sidrap
MI DDI Pangsid x x x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 4 Duapitue x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Sidrap N = 2 Total 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1
Soppeng
MTs Takalalla x x x x x 4yr x x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 3 Watang x x x x x 9 x x x x x x x x x
SMPN Lili Rilau x x x x x 8 x x x x x x x x
Soppeng N = 3 Total 2 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 2 1 2 0 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1
Makassar
MTsN Biring Kanayya x x x x x 3yr N/A N/A N/A N/A x N/A x x x x N/A N/A
MTsN Gunungsari x x x x x 9mo x N/A x x x x
SMP PGRI x* x x x x 12 x x x x x x x x x x x
SMPN 3 Makassar x x x x x 1yr x x x x x x
SMPN 33 x x x x x 14mo x N/A x x x x x
Makassar N = 5 Total 2 3 0 5 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 3 4 1 3 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 4 2 2 3 1 0 0 2 2 3 2 1
N= 12 Grand Total 6 4 2 8 4 0 9 1 2 6 2 4 10 2 7 2 0 6 3 3 1 5 1 11 9 7 9 2 0 1 6 3 4 7 3
3. DBE Status 4. Active Learning? 5. Principals 6. Supervisors visit?
 
use DBE 
tools? 
pend
ently
10. Universit 
Active SC?
1. School Classificat2. Type 7. Know/use DBE activities 
Madrasah
South Sulawesi Junior Secondary School Information
• Data in Questions 6-10 may be incomplete due to non-responses. Dates of field visits: South Sulawesi: August 28-September 6, 2012.
106
DBE 1 DBE 2 DBE 3 9. Who provides TT/CPD?
StatePrivate State Urban Rural Poor Prtnr Replic Non MostlyPartial No M F In post Reg Irreg HelpfulSo-so SBM Vision? AL ICT CRC BTL 1-4 ICT KS cap KKM KKG SupersOther Possible No
Primary Schools Yes No Yes No
Pangkep
SDN 28 Kemampuan x x x x x 2mo x x x x x x x x x
Pangkep N = 1 Total 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Sidrap
SDB 10 Pangkajenne x x x x x x 3yr x x x x x x x x
SDN 11Pangkejenne x x x x x 4 mon x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
SDN 4 Otting x x x x x 11 yr x x x x x x x x x x x
SDN 3 Otting x x x x x 17 yrs x x x x x x x x x x x
Sidrap N = 4 Total 4 0 0 2 2 1 4 0 0 2 1 1 3 1 4 0 4 0 4 4 1 2 4 3 2 3 0 0 4 4 1 0 4 0
Soppeng
MI Assaddiyah Cabbenge x x x x x x 1yr x x x x x x x x x x x x
SD 34 Tokabbeng x x x x x 4yr x x x x x x x x x
SD 161 Karya x x x x x 5yr x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
SD 166 Lapurawung x x x x x 8yr x x x x x x
SDN 1 Lamappapoleware x x x x x 7yr x x x x x x x x x x
SDN 23 Tanete x x x x x x x x x x x x x
SDN 28 Malaka x x x x x 3yr x x x x x x x x x x x
Soppeng N = 7 Total 6 1 0 4 3 1 5 2 0 5 1 1 4 3 5 2 4 2 4 6 0 4 5 2 4 5 2 1 5 4 5 3 6 1
Makassar
SD 202 Walennae x x x x x 6 mo. x x x x x x
SD Islam Al Bayan x x x x x x 6yr x x x x x x x x x
SDN 3 Bertingkat x x x x x 12yr x x x x x x x x x x x x x
SDN IKEKP 1 x x x x x 4yr x x x x x x x x x x
SDN IKEP 2 x x x x x 1yr x x x x x x x
Makassar N = 5 Total 5 0 0 4 1 1 3 0 2 1 4 0 2 3 5 0 1 3 3 3 1 4 3 2 1 4 0 1 4 3 0 2 3 2
N = 17 Grand Total 16 1 0 11 6 3 13 2 2 9 6 2 9 8 15 2 10 5 11 13 3 10 13 8 8 13 2 1 14 11 6 5 14 3
3. DBE Status 4. Active Learning? 5. Principals 6. Supervisors visit?
 
use DBE 
tools? 
pend
ently
10. Universit 
Active SC?
1. School Classificat2. Type
Madrasah
South Sulawesi Primary Schools Information
• Data in Questions 6-10 may be incomplete due to non-responses. Dates of field visits: South Sulawesi: August 28-September 6, 2012.
107
DBE 1 DBE 2 DBE 3 9. Who provides TT/CPD?
StatePrivate State Urban Rural Poor Prtnr Replic Non MostlyPartial No M F In pos Reg Irreg Helpfu So-so SBM Vision? AL ICT CRC BTL 1-4 ICT KS cap KKM KKG SupersOther Possible No
Secondary Schools
Central Java
Purwarego N = 5 Total 3 0 2 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 0 1 0 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 1
Boyolali N = 6 Total 3 0 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 0 1 5 5 1 0 2 0 1 2 4 1 5 4 3 3 0 1 0 2 1 0
Kudus N = 6 Total 3 2 1 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 4 4 3 5 0 1 0 2 1 3
Demak N = 6 Total 3 3 0 1 5 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 1 0 2 0 3 1 3 3 4 5 4 3 1 1 0 2 1 3
N = 23 Total 12 5 6 6 17 10 8 8 7 5 5 13 19 5 0 7 0 6 6 12 6 15 17 13 14 1 3 0 7 4 7
South Sulawesi
 Pangkep N = 2 total 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0
Sidrap N = 2 Total 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1
Soppeng N = 3 Total 2 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 2 1 2 0 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1
Makassar N = 5 Total 2 3 0 5 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 3 4 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 4 2 2 3 1 0 0 2 2 3 2 1
N= 12 Grand Total 6 4 2 8 4 0 9 1 2 6 2 4 10 2 7 2 0 6 3 3 1 5 1 11 9 7 9 2 0 1 6 3 4 7 3
North Sumatra
Binjai N = 7 Total 6 1 0 6 1 1 5 2 0 1 2 4 5 2 6 0 1 5 1 0 0 2 7 5 5 5 0 0 1 6 5 1 4 2
Taput N =5 Total 4 0 1 4 1 1 5 0 0 2 3 0 3 2 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 5 5 4 4 0 1 1 4 3 0 5 0
N = 12 Grand Total 10 1 1 10 2 2 10 2 0 3 5 4 8 4 10 1 2 7 1 0 1 4 12 10 9 9 0 1 2 10 8 1 9 2
Banten
Banten N= 3 Total 1 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1
N = 3 Total 1 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1
N = 47 Grand Total 29 10 11 27 23 12 30 11 9 14 15 21 39 12 17 10 3 19 11 16 8 24 42 35 30 20 2 2 7 16 11 13 22 13
1. School Classificat2. Type 7. Know/use DBE activities 8. DINAS 
use DBE 
tools? 
10. University 
Madrasah 3. DBE Status 4. Active Learning? 5. Principals 6. Supervisors visit? Indepe Prntshps
Active SC? ndently
DBE Evaluation: Junior Secondary School Totals: Four Provinces
• Information is data from schools visited by evaluation team in four provinces. Interview guides were field tested in Banten, West Java for one day so data are not complete. 
Interview guides and process were modified after Central Java visit to include Question #8. Data in Questions 6-10 may be incomplete due to non-responses. Dates of field 
visits: West Java: July 30, 2012, Central Java: August 1-12, 2012, South Sulawesi: August 28 – September 5, 2012, North Sumatra: September 6-16, 2012.
108
DBE 1 DBE 2 DBE 3 9. Who provides TT/CPD?
StatePrivate State Urban Rural Poor Prtnr Replic Non MostlyPartial No M F In post Reg Irreg HelpfulSo-so SBM Vision? AL ICT CRC BTL 1-4 ICT KS cap KKM KKG SupersOther Possible No
Primary Schools Yes No Yes No
Central Java
Purwarego N = 5 Total 3 1 1 0 5 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 5 0 2 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 2 1 1
Boyolali N = 6 Total 3 3 0 0 6 4 2 1 3 0 2 4 5 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 0 3 1 1
 Kudus N = 6 Total 3 3 0 2 4 2 2 1 3 0 1 5 5 1 2 2 0 4 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 5 1 2
Demak N = 6 Total 3 3 0 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 1 2 2 1 4 1 3 1 3 3 3 4 3 4 1 0 5 0 2
N = 23 Total 12 10 1 5 18 11 8 5 10 3 6 14 17 6 8 9 4 14 6 12 6 8 11 10 12 8 9 2 0 15 3 6
South Sulawesi 
Pangkep N = 1 Total 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Sidrap N = 4 Total 4 0 0 2 2 1 4 0 0 2 1 1 3 1 4 0 4 0 4 4 1 2 4 3 2 3 0 0 4 4 1 0 4 0
Soppeng N = 7 Total 6 1 0 4 3 1 5 2 1 5 1 1 4 3 5 2 4 2 4 6 0 4 5 2 4 5 2 1 5 4 5 3 6 1
Makassar N = 5 Total 5 0 0 4 1 1 3 0 2 1 4 0 2 3 5 0 1 3 3 3 1 4 3 2 1 4 0 1 4 3 0 2 3 2
N = 17 Total 16 1 0 11 6 3 13 2 2 9 6 2 9 8 15 2 9 5 11 13 3 10 13 8 8 13 2 2 14 11 6 5 14 3
North Sumatra
Binjai N = 10 Total 8 1 1 9 1 2 8 0 2 3 6 1 5 5 10 0 0 10 6 5 3 5 9 7 3 9 0 0 10 1 2 1 3 1
Taput N = 7 Total 6 0 1 3 4 3 5 2 0 1 5 1 4 3 4 1 1 4 5 1 5 3 6 3 0 1 0 0 7 1 2 5 3 1
N = 17 Total 14 1 2 12 5 5 13 2 2 4 11 2 9 8 14 1 1 14 11 6 8 8 15 10 3 10 0 0 17 1 4 6 6 2
Baten
Banten N= 1 Total 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
N = 1 Total 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
N = 58 Grand Total 43 12 3 29 29 19 35 9 14 16 24 18 36 22 37 12 14 33 29 32 17 26 40 28 24 24 4 10 41 14 10 26 24 11
Indepe
Active SC? ndently
1. School Classificat2. Type 7. Know/use DBE activities 
Madrasah 3. DBE Status 4. Active Learning? 5. Principals 6. Supervisors visit?
8. DINAS 
use DBE 
tools? 
10. University 
Prntshps
DBE Evaluation: Primary School Totals: Four Provinces
• Information is data from selected schools visited by evaluation team in four provinces. Interview guides were field tested in Banten, West Java for one day so data are not 
complete. Interview guides and process were modified again after Central Java visit to include Question #8. Data in Questions 6-10 may be incomplete due to non￾responses. Dates of field visits: West Java: July 30, 2012, Central Java: August 1-12, 2012, South Sulawesi: August 28 – September 5, 2012, North Sumatra: September 6-16, 
2012.
109
Annex 11: School Profile
PART 1: PRINCIPAL and TEACHER INFORMATION* 
A. CENTRAL JAVA
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner 
ship
Principal 
Qualification
Certified 
Principal
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% 
Female 
Teacher
% 
Non 
PNS
% 
Teachers 
with S1 /DIV 
Qualification
% 
Certified 
Teacher
1. Boyolali MI Gunung 
Wijil Non DBE Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 9 77.8% 11.1% 77.8% 22.2%
2. Boyolali SD N 
Sukabumi Cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 9 66.7% N/A 77.8% 66.7%
3. Boyolali SMP N 1 
Cepogo Non DBE
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 40 42.5% 12.5% 80.0% 60.0%
4. Boyolali MTs N 
Cepogo Cohort 1 Madrasah State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 38 50.0% 81.6% 68.4% 68.4%
5. Boyolali
MTs N 
Wonotoro, 
Sambi
Replicated Madrasah State 
owned Master Degree Y 21 42.9% 28.6% 100.0% 71.4%
6. Boyolali SMP N 2 
Ngemplak Cohort 1 
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 42 52.4% 2.4% 97.6% 78.6%
7. Boyolali MI Ringin Cohort 2 Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree N 7 57.1% 100.0
% 42.9% 14.3%
8. Boyolali SN N 1 
Panas Non DBE
General 
Public 
School
Private 
owned Master Degree Y 10 70.0% 10.0% 70.0% 40.0%
9. Boyolali SMP 1 Klego Replicated
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 41 53.7% 19.5% 92.7% 56.1%
10. Boyolali MTs N 
Andong Non DBE Madrasah State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 63 42.9% 23.8% 93.7% 61.9%
110
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner 
ship
Principal 
Qualification
Certified 
Principal
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% 
Female 
Teacher
% 
Non 
PNS
% 
Teachers 
with S1 /DIV 
Qualification
% 
Certified 
Teacher
11. Boyolali SDN 
Randusari Replicated
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 8 50.0% 37.5% 100.0% 100.0%
12. Boyolali MI Kopen Non DBE Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree N 10 80.0% 80.0% 100.0% 10.0%
Average N = 298 57.2% 36.1% 83.4% 54.1%
13. Demak MTs N
Gajah Replicated Madrasah State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 49 44.9% 10.2% 100.0% 59.2%
14. Demak SMP Negeri 
1 Mijen Non DBE
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 46 50.0% 30.4% 97.8% 56.5%
15. Demak SDN 
Cabean 2 Non DBE
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 15 80.0% 46.7% 80.0% 26.7%
16. Demak
MI 
Miftahussala m
Cohort 1 
& 2 Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 20 65.0% 35.0% 90.0% 30.0%
17. Demak
MTs NU 
Raudhatul 
Mu'alimin
Non DBE Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 23 47.8% 87.0% 47.8% 47.8%
18. Demak MTs NU 
Demak Cohort 1 Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 24 41.7% 79.2% 75.0% 50.0%
19. Demak SMP 1 
Mranggen Replicated
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
doctorate 
degree Y 53 62.3% 11.3% 71.7% 64.2%
20. Demak SMP 5 
Demak cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 46 65.2% 21.7% 93.5% 58.7%
21. Demak SD N 
Sidomulyo 2 Replicated
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 15 73.3% 33.3% 40.0% 33.3%
22. Demak SD N 
Bintoro 13 cohort 1 General 
Public 
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 12 50.0% 50.0% 83.3% 33.3%
111
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner 
ship
Principal 
Qualification
Certified 
Principal
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% 
Female 
Teacher
% 
Non 
PNS
% 
Teachers 
with S1 /DIV 
Qualification
% 
Certified 
Teacher
School
23. Demak
MI Sultan 
Fatah 
Bintoro
Replicated Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree N 25 60.0% 64.0% 96.0% 36.0%
24. Demak
MI 
Tanwirudh 
Dholam
Non DBE Madrasah Private 
owned
high school , 
Islamic 
university (not 
finished)
N 10 60.0% 80.0% 70.0% N/A
Average N=338 58.4% 45.7% 78.8% 45.1%
25. Kudus MTs N 2 
Kudus
Cohort 1 
& 2 Madrasah State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 54 70.4% 38.9% 92.6% 50.0%
26. Kudus SD N 
Gondosari 1 Cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 13 46.2% 23.1% 92.3% 38.5%
27. Kudus
SD N 
Prambatan 
Kidul
Non DBE
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 10 80.0% 40.0% 60.0% 30.0%
28. Kudus MTs NU 
Nurul Ulum Non DBE Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree N 49 63.3% 98.0% 81.6% 26.5%
29. Kudus SMP 2 
Jekulo Cohort 2
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 40 55.0% 2.5% 97.5% 55.0%
30. Kudus SMP N 3 
Jekulo Non DBE
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 44 59.1% 9.1% 90.9% 43.2%
31. Kudus MTs Banat Replicated Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 52 84.6% 90.4% 86.5% 46.2%
32. Kudus SMP N 1 
Bae Replicated
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 44 61.4% 9.1% 81.8% 61.4%
33. Kudus SD N 
Kaliwungu Non DBE General 
Public 
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 11 72.7% 27.3% 72.7% 27.3%
112
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner 
ship
Principal 
Qualification
Certified 
Principal
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% 
Female 
Teacher
% 
Non 
PNS
% 
Teachers 
with S1 /DIV 
Qualification
% 
Certified 
Teacher
School
34. Kudus MI Nurul 
Huda Non DBE Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 14 21.4% 71.4% 78.6% 7.1%
35. Kudus
MI NU 
Manafiul 
Ulum 1 and 
2 
Non DBE Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 24 50.0% 95.8% 75.0% 33.3%
36. Kudus MI Tsanratul 
Wathon Partner Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 11 54.5% 90.9% 54.5% 36.4%
Average N=366 59.8% 49.7% 80.3% 37.9%
37. Purwore
jo
SD N 
Kaliurip Cohort 2
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 15 60.0% 20.0% 46.7% 53.3%
38. Purwore
jo MIN Bener Cohort 2 Madrasah State 
owned Diploma Y 14 57.1% 21.4% 21.4% 14.3%
39. Purwore
jo
MI Al
-
Ikhwan 
Glagah 
Malang
Non DBE Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 9 66.7% 66.7% 55.6% 11.1%
40. Purwore
jo
MTs N 
Loano Replicated Madrasah State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 33 45.5% 12.1% 100.0% 75.8%
41. Purwore
jo
SMP N 6 
Purworejo Replicated
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 30 63.3% 26.7% 80.0% 93.3%
42. Purwore
jo
SMP 31 
Purworejo Non DBE
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 36 50.0% 19.4% 80.6% 72.2%
43. Purwore
jo
MTs N 
Bener cohort 2 Madrasah State 
owned Master Degree Y 45 51.1% 11.1% 93.3% 86.7%
44. Purwore
jo
SMP N 19 
Bener cohort 2
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 33 48.5% 9.1% 87.9% 63.6%
113
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner 
ship
Principal 
Qualification
Certified 
Principal
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% 
Female 
Teacher
% 
Non 
PNS
% 
Teachers 
with S1 /DIV 
Qualification
% 
Certified 
Teacher
45. Purwore
jo SD N Loano Non DBE
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 10 70.0% 30.0% 90.0% 50.0%
46. Purwore
jo
SD N Maron 
I Replicated
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 10 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% 60.0%
Average N=235 58.2% 24.7% 75.6% 58%
GRAND 
TOTAL
Non DBE = 18
Replicated =12
Partner = 16
General 
Public = 24
Madrasah 
= 22
Private 
owned 
= 31
State 
owned 
= 15
Diploma =2
Bachelor = 
33
Master = 10
Doctorate = 
1
Yes = 41
No = 5 1237 52.3% 39% 79.5% 48.8%
* School data has been gathered directly from conversations with school administrators and staffs. 
114
B. NORTH SUMATRA
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner
ship
Principal 
Qualification
Certified 
Principal 
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% 
Female 
Teacher
% 
Non 
PNS
%
Teacher 
with S1 
/DIV 
Qualific
ation
% 
Certified 
Teacher
1 Binjai City MTs Negeri 
Binjai cohort 1 Madrasah State 
owned Master Degree Y 63 66.7% 23.8% 96.8% 74.6%
2 Binjai City SMP Negeri 
2 Binjai cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 69 81.2% 7.2% 78.3% 53.6%
3 Binjai City SMP N 10 cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 46 73.9% 8.7% 100.0% 54.3%
4 Binjai City SMP N 11 
Binjai cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 50 48.0% 2.0% 96.0% 64.0%
5 Binjai City SMP N 7 
Binjai cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 45 77.8% 22.2% 97.8% 57.8%
6 Binjai City MTs Swasta 
al washliyah cohort 1 Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 33 57.6% 93.9% 87.9% 36.4%
7 Binjai City SMP Negeri 
9 Binjai Replicated General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree 
Y 46 78.3% 10.9% 93.5% 60.9%
8 Binjai City MIS Ikhwanul 
Mukminin cohort 1 Madrasah Private 
owned Master Degree Y 11 72.7% 63.6% 100.0% 18.2%
9 Binjai City MIN 1 cohort 1 Madrasah State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree N 22 86.4% 22.7% 100.0% 27.3%
10 Binjai City SD N 
020255 Cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 13 84.6% 23.1% 46.2% 23.1%
11 Binjai City SD N 
020263 Cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 14 78.6% 7.1% 14.3% 50.0%
12 Binjai City SD N 
028288 Non DBE General 
Public School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 16 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% 93.8%
13 Binjai City SD N 
020260 Cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 14 85.7% 42.9% 28.6% 35.7%
14 Binjai City SD N 
023901 Cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned Diploma Y 14 78.6% 21.4% 28.6% 28.6%
15 Binjai City MIS AL 
Muqoirubin Cohort 1 Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 10 30.0% 80.0% 100.0% 10.0%
115
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner
ship
Principal 
Qualification
Certified 
Principal 
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% 
Female 
Teacher
% 
Non 
PNS
%
Teacher 
with S1 
/DIV 
Qualific
ation
% 
Certified 
Teacher
16 Binjai City SDN 023894 cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 13 92.3% 15.4% 53.8% 38.5%
17 Binjai City SDN 020256 cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 14 78.6% 21.4% 35.7% 28.6%
Average N=493 73.2% 28.9% 73.8% 44.4%
18 Tapanuli 
Utara
SMP N1 
Sipoholon cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 32 68.8% 25.0% 90.6% 56.3%
19 Tapanuli 
Utara
SMP N 4 
Tarutung cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 31 64.5% 9.7% 83.9% 67.7%
20 Tapanuli 
Utara
SMP N 1 
Tarutung cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 42 76.2% 11.9% 61.9% 52.4%
21 Tapanuli 
Utara
SMP N 1 
Siborongbor
ong
Cohort 2 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 51 72.5% 19.6% 84.3% 60.8%
22 Tapanuli 
Utara
Mts N 
Peanornor Cohort 1 Madrasah State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 13 76.9% 30.8%
100.0% 30.8%
23 Tapanuli 
Utara SD 173102 Replicated General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 17 76.5% 23.5% 11.8% 29.4%
24 Tapanuli 
Utara SD 178492 Replicated General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 14 85.7% 14.3% 28.6% 28.6%
25 Tapanuli 
Utara
SD N 
173133 Cohort 2 General 
Public School
State 
owned Diploma Y 12 100.0% 16.7% 33.3% 58.3%
26 Tapanuli 
Utara
SD N 173 
119 Cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 9 66.7% 11.1% 22.2% 55.6%
27 Tapanuli 
Utara
MI N 
Peanornor Cohort 1 Madrasah State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 9 77.8% 33.3% 88.9% 44.4%
28 Tapanuli 
Utara
SD N 
173100 Cohort 1 General 
Public School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 17 82.4% 11.8% 35.3% 52.9%
29 Tapanuli 
Utara
SD N 
173104 Cohort 1 General 
Public School 
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 15 73.3% 13.3% 26.7% 46.7%
116
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner
ship
Principal 
Qualification
Certified 
Principal 
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% 
Female 
Teacher
% 
Non 
PNS
%
Teacher 
with S1 
/DIV 
Qualific
ation
% 
Certified 
Teacher
Average N=262 76.8% 18.4% 55.6% 48.7%
GRAND TOTAL
Non DBE = 1
Replicated =3
Partner = 25
General 
Public = 22
Madrasah 
= 7
Private 
owned 
= 3
State 
owned 
= 26
Diploma =2
Bachelor = 
22
Master = 5
Yes = 28
No = 1 755 75% 23.7% 64.7% 46.6%
117
C. SOUTH SULAWESI
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner
ship
Qualification 
of the 
Principal
Certified 
Principal 
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% Female 
Teacher
% Non 
PNS
% Teachers 
with S1/DIV 
Qualification
% 
Certified 
Teacher
1 Makassar 
City
MTs Negeri 
Model 
Gunung Sari
Non-DBE Madrasah State 
owned Doctorate Y 82 N/A 18.3% N/A 80.5%
2 Makassar 
City
SMPN 33 
Makassar cohort 2
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 57 68.4% 8.8% 89.5% 71.9%
3 Makassar 
City
SDIT Al 
Bayan cohort 2 Madrasah State 
owned Master Degree Y 30 56.7% 93.3% 93.3% 13.3%
4 Makassar 
City
SMPN 3 
Makassar Replicated
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 62 79.0% 9.7% 82.3% 83.9%
5 Makassar 
City
MTs Negeri 
Biringkanay
DBE Madrasah State 
owned Master Degree Y 78 61.5% 34.6% 92.3% 62.8%
6 Makassar 
City
SDI BTK -
Mamajang III cohort 2 Madrasah State 
owned Master Degree Y 17 100.0% 35.3% 94.1% 35.3%
7 Makassar 
City
SMP YP PGRI 
(Disamakan) DBE
General 
Public 
School
Private 
owned Master Degree Y 24 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 41.7%
8 Makassar 
City
SDN 
Komplek IKIP Non-DBE
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 24 66.7% 66.7% 100.0% 25.0%
Average N= 374 72.5% 42.7% 89.5% 51.8%
9 Pangkep MTs N 
Ma'rang cohort 1 Madrasah State 
owned Master Degree Y 53 58.5% 34.0% 94.3% 54.7%
10 Pangkep SD 28 
Tumampua II cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 32 78.1% 15.6% 87.5% 40.6%
11 Pangkep SMP 2 
Pangkajene cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 67 67.2% 17.9% 98.5% 59.7%
118
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner
ship
Qualification 
of the 
Principal
Certified 
Principal 
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% Female 
Teacher
% Non 
PNS
% Teachers 
with S1/DIV 
Qualificatio
n
% 
Certified 
Teacher
Average N= 155 67.9% 22.3% 93.4% 51.7%
12 Sidrap SD Negeri 3 
Otting cohort 2
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 8 62.5% 37.5% 100.0% 37.5%
13 Sidrap SD Negeri 4 
Otting cohort 2
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 9 55.6% 55.6% 88.9% 33.3%
14 Sidrap SD Negeri 10 
Pangsid cohort 2
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 30 70.0% 43.3% 36.7% 40.0%
15 Sidrap SD Negeri 11 
Pangkajene cohort 2
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 25 88.0% 56.0% 56.0% 40.0%
16 Sidrap MIS DDI 
Pangkajene cohort 2 Madrasah Private 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 11 54.5% 72.7% 90.9% 9.1%
17 Sidrap SMPN 4 
DUA PITUE cohort 2
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 25 52.0% 8.0% 96.0% 72.0%
Average N=108 54.7% 45.5% 78.1% 38.7%
18 soppeng
SDN 28 
Malaka cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 10 70.0% 20.0% 100.0% 80.0%
19 soppeng
SDN 166 
Laburawung Non DBE
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 9 66.7% 100.0% 100.0% 66.7%
20 soppeng
SDN 23 
Tanete cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 17 76.5% 41.2% 70.6% 47.1%
21 soppeng
SDN 1 
Lamappolow
are
cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned
Bachelor 
Degree Y 20 85.0% 10.0% 95.0% 90.0%
22
soppeng
SMP N 3 
Watansoppe
ng
Cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 44 75.0% 2.3% 86.4% 61.4%
119
No District Name of 
school Cohort Type of 
School
Owner
ship
Qualification 
of the 
Principal
Certified 
Principal 
(Y / N)
Total 
Teacher
% Female 
Teacher
% Non 
PNS
% Teachers 
with S1/DIV 
Qualification
% 
Certified 
Teacher
23 soppeng
SDN 161 
Karya Cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 16 62.5% 81.3% 81.3% 56.3%
24 soppeng MI As'adiyah 
cabenge 
Cohort 1 Madrasah Private 
owned Master Degree Y 9 66.7% 88.9% 33.3% 22.2%
25 soppeng
MTS N 
Takalala DBE Madrasah Private 
owned Master Degree Y 28 64.3% 42.9% 100.0% 28.6%
26 soppeng
SDN 139 
Tokebbeng Replicated
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 10 90.0% 20.0% 60.0% 30.0%
27 soppeng
SDN 202 
Walnae cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree N 11 81.8% 36.4% 54.5% 18.2%
28 soppeng
SMPN 1 
Lilirilau cohort 1
General 
Public 
School
State 
owned Master Degree Y 55 63.6% 12.7% 89.1% 70.9%
Average N=229 72.9% 41.4% 79% 51.9%
GRAND 
TOTAL
Non DBE = 3
Replicated =2
Partner = 23
General 
Public = 
20
Madrasa
h = 8
Private 
owned 
= 4
State 
owned 
= 24
Bachelor = 9
Master = 18
Doctorate : 
1 
Yes = 27
No = 1 863 68.3% 38% 85% 57.8%
120
D. RECAPITULATION BY PROVINCE, GENDER, AND SCHOOL TYPE
No Province
Female Teacher Male Teacher
Madrasah 
Ibtidaiyah 
(MI)
Madrasah 
Tsanawiyah 
(MTs)
Primary 
School 
(SD)
Jr. 
Secondary 
School 
(SMP)
Madrasah 
Ibtidaiyah 
(MI)
Madrasah 
Tsanawiyah 
(MTs)
Primary 
School 
(SD)
Jr. 
Secondary 
School 
(SMP)
1 Central 
Java 58% 55% 66% 56% 42% 45% 34% 44%
2 South 
Sulawesi 69% 60% 75% 70% 31% 40% 25% 30%
3 North 
Sumatra 71% 65% 81% 72% 29% 35% 19% 28%
 
E. RECAPITULATION BY TOTAL ON PNS , NON-PNS AND CERTIFIED TEACHERS
No Province PNS Non PNS Certified 
Teachers
1 Central Java 65% 35% 54%
2 South Sulawesi 69% 31% 57%
3 North Sumatra 79% 21% 52%
121
PART 2: STUDENT INFORMATION* 
A. CENTRAL JAVA
No District Name of 
school
Type of 
School
Number 
of 
Students
Female 
Students
% Female 
Students
Male 
Students
% Male 
Students
Average 
Students 
per class
Number of 
classes
1. Boyolali MI Gunung Wijil Madrasah 121 70 57.9% 26 21.5% 20 6
2. Boyolali SD N Sukabumi
General 
Public 
School
121 98 81.0% 108 89.3% 34 6 
3. Boyolali SMP N 1 Cepogo
General 
Public 
School
740 400 54.1% 340 45.9% 36 18
4. Boyolali MTs N Cepogo Madrasah 540 253 46.9% 287 53.1% 36 15
5. Boyolali
MTs N 
Wonotoro, 
Sambi 
Madrasah 211 103 48.8% 108 51.2% 24 9 
6. Boyolali SMP N 2 
Ngemplak
General 
Public 
School
661 357 54.0% 304 46.0% 32 21
7. Boyolali MI Ringin Madrasah 76 35 46.1% 41 53.9% 12 6
8. Boyolali SN N 1 Panas
General 
Public 
School
145 70 48.3% 75 51.7% 24 6 
9. Boyolali SMP 1 Klego
General 
Public 
School
565 282 49.9% 283 50.1% 32 19
10. Boyolali MTs N Andong Madrasah 1018 518 50.9% 500 49.1% 36 29
11. Boyolali SDN Randusari
General 
Public 
School
160 N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 6 
12. Boyolali MI Kopen Madrasah 104 51 49.0% 53 51.0% 17 6
Average N= 4,472 N= 2,237 53.4% N=2,235 46.6% 27 12
122
No District Name of 
school
Type of 
School
Number 
of 
Students
Female 
Students
% Female 
Students
Male 
Students
% Male 
Students
Average 
Students 
per class
Number of 
classes
13. Demak MTs N Gajah Madrasah 579 289 49.9% 290 50.1% 36 16
14. Demak SMP Negeri 1 
Mijen
General 
Public 
School
732 341 46.6% 391 53.4% 31 24
15. Demak SDN Cabean 2
General 
Public 
School
258 126 48.8% 132 51.2% N/A 6 
16. Demak MI Miftahussalam Madrasah 431 204 47.3% 227 52.7% 36 12
17. Demak
MTs NU 
Raudhatul 
Mu'alimin
Madrasah 665 334 50.2% 331 49.8% 40 18
18. Demak MTs NU Demak Madrasah 511 251 49.1% 260 50.9% 37 12
19. Demak SMP 1 Mranggen
General 
Public 
School
995 547 55.0% 448 45.0% 36 27
20. Demak SMP 5 Demak
General 
Public 
School
729 331 45.4% 398 54.6% 30 21
21. Demak SD N Sidomulyo 
2 
General 
Public 
School
270 138 51.1% 132 48.9% 30 9 
22. Demak SD N Bintoro 13
General 
Public 
School
169 82 48.5% 87 51.5% 28 6 
23. Demak MI Sultan Fatah 
Bintoro Madrasah 471 214 45.4% 257 54.6% 28 17
24. Demak MI Tanwirudh 
Dholam Madrasah 85 42 49.4% 43 50.6% 6 1 
Average N=5,895 N= 2,899 49.1% N=2,996 50.9% 30 14
25. Kudus MTs N 2 Kudus Madrasah 759 401 52.8% 358 47.2% 36 21
26. Kudus SD N Gondosari 
1
General 
Public 266 146 54.9% 120 45.1% 45 6 
123
No District Name of 
school
Type of 
School
Number 
of 
Students
Female 
Students
% Female 
Students
Male 
Students
% Male 
Students
Average 
Students 
per class
Number of 
classes
School
27. Kudus SD N Prambatan 
Kidul
General 
Public 
School
69 36 52.2% 33 47.8% 12 6 
28. Kudus MTs NU Nurul 
Ulum Madrasah 789 409 51.8% 380 48.2% 37 21
29. Kudus SMP 2 Jekulo
General 
Public 
School
799 378 47.3% 421 52.7% 32 18
30. Kudus SMP N 3 Jekulo
General 
Public 
School
672 286 42.6% 386 57.4% 30 22
31. Kudus MTs Banat Madrasah 936 936 100.0% N/A 0.0% 45 21
32. Kudus SMP N 1 Bae
General 
Public 
School
768 438 57.0% 330 43.0% 32 24
33. Kudus SD N Kaliwungu
General 
Public 
School
135 72 53.3% 63 46.7% 23 6 
34. Kudus MI Nurul Huda Madrasah 221 N/A N/A N/A N/A 36 6 
35. Kudus MI NU Manafiul 
Ulum 1 and 2 Madrasah 366 180 49.2% 186 50.8% 30 12
36. Kudus MI Tsanratul 
Wathon Madrasah 102 45 44.1% 57 55.9% 17 6 
Average N=5,882 N=3,327 56.6% N=2,555 43.4% 31 14
37. Purworejo SD N Kaliurip
General 
Public 
School
289 132 45.7% 157 54.3% 23 12
38. Purworejo MIN Bener Madrasah 146 75 51.4% 71 48.6% 24 6 
39. Purworejo MI Al- Ikhwan 
Glagah Malang Madrasah 69 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 6 
124
No District Name of 
school
Type of 
School
Number 
of 
Students
Female 
Students
% Female 
Students
Male 
Students
% Male 
Students
Average 
Students 
per class
Number of 
classes
40. Purworejo MTs N Loano Madrasah 634 308 48.6% 326 51.4% 35 18
41. Purworejo SMP N 6 
Purworejo
General 
Public 
School
569 262 46.0% 307 54.0% 32 18
42. Purworejo SMP 31 
Purworejo
General 
Public 
School
536 274 51.1% 262 48.9% 32 15
43. Purworejo MTs N Bener Madrasah 790 389 49.2% 401 50.8% 34 24
44. Purworejo SMP N 19 Bener
General 
Public 
School
563 314 55.8% 249 44.2% 32 18
45. Purworejo SD N Loano
General 
Public 
School
195 90 46.2% 105 53.8% 32 6 
46. Purworejo SD N Maron I
General 
Public 
School
141 61 43.3% 80 56.7% 23 6 
Average 3,932 1,905 48.4% 2,027 51.6% 28 13
Grand Total 20,171 10368 51.4% 9413 46.7% 29 13
* Information has been gathered from conversations with school administrators and staffs or collected from information posted in 
school offices. 
125
B. NORTH SUMATRA
No District Name of school Type of 
School
Number of 
Students
Female 
Students
% Female 
Students
Male 
Students
% Male 
Students
Average 
Students per 
class
Number 
of class
1 Binjai City MTs Negeri Binjai Madrasah 710 436 61.4% 274 38.6% 32 22
2 Binjai City SMP Negeri 2 Binjai General Public 
School 1091 N/A N/A N/A N/A 44 25
3 Binjai City SMP N 10 General Public 
School 600 294 49.0% 306 51.0% 32 18
4 Binjai City SMP N 11 Binjai General Public 
School 760 379 49.9% 381 50.1% 38 20
5 Binjai City SMP N 7 Binjai General Public 
School 859 455 53.0% 404 47.0% 39 22
6 Binjai City MTs Swasta al 
washliyah Madrasah 310 160 51.6% 150 48.4% 38 8 
7 Binjai City SMP Negeri 9 Binjai General Public 
School 684 322 47.1% 362 52.9% 38 18
8 Binjai City MIS Ikhwanul 
Mukminin Madrasah 136 58 42.6% 78 57.4% 23 6 
9 Binjai City MIN 1 Madrasah 319 157 49.2% 162 50.8% 35 9 
10 Binjai City SD N 020255 General Public 
School 222 102 45.9% 120 54.1% 37 6 
11 Binjai City SD N 020263 General Public 
School 325 163 50.2% 162 49.8% 41 8 
12 Binjai City SD N 028288 General Public 
School 284 151 53.2% 133 46.8% 47 8 
13 Binjai City SD N 020260 General Public 
School 236 120 50.8% 116 49.2% 27 9 
14 Binjai City SD N 023901 General Public 
School 190 79 41.6% 111 58.4% 31 6 
15 Binjai City MIS AL Muqoirubin Madrasah 104 58 55.8% 46 44.2% 17 6 
16 Binjai City SDN 023894 General Public 147 72 49.0% 75 51.0% 24 6 
126
No District Name of school Type of 
School
Number of 
Students
Female 
Students
% Female 
Students
Male 
Students
% Male 
Students
Average 
Students per 
class
Number 
of class
School
17 Binjai City SDN 020256 General Public 
School 206 N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 8 
Average N=7,183 N=3,006 50% N=2,880 50% 33 12
18 Tapanuli 
Utara SMP N1 Sipoholon General Public 
School 515 255 49.5% 260 50.5% 32 15
19 Tapanuli 
Utara SMP N 4 Tarutung General Public 
School 386 177 45.9% 209 54.1% 32 14
20 Tapanuli 
Utara SMP N 1 Tarutung General Public 
School 615 292 47.5% 323 52.5% 32 21
21 Tapanuli 
Utara
SMP N 1 
Siborongborong
General Public 
School 791 408 51.6% 383 48.4% 34 23
22 Tapanuli 
Utara Mts N Peanornor Madrasah 130 69 53.1% 61 46.9% 18 6 
23 Tapanuli 
Utara SD 173102 General Public 
School 352 184 52.3% 166 47.2% 29 12
24 Tapanuli 
Utara SD 178492 General Public 
School 225 112 49.8% 113 50.2% 28 8 
25 Tapanuli 
Utara SD N 173133 General Public 
School 144 64 44.4% 80 55.6% 24 6 
26 Tapanuli 
Utara SD N 173 119 General Public 
School 152 76 50.0% 76 50.0% 23 6 
27 Tapanuli 
Utara MI N Peanornor Madrasah 51 23 45.1% 28 54.9% 6 1 
28 Tapanuli 
Utara SD N 173100 General Public 
School 259 137 52.9% 122 47.1% 24 11
29 Tapanuli 
Utara SD N 173104 General Public 
School 246 111 45.1% 135 54.9% 8 7 
Average N=4,136 N=1,908 46.1% N=2,228 53.9% 24 11
Grand Total N=11,319 N=4,914 48% N= 5108 52% 29 12
127
C. SOUTH SULAWESI
No District Name of school Type of School
Number 
of
students
Female 
Students
% Female 
Students
Male 
Students
% Male 
Students
Average 
Students 
per class
Number 
of 
classes
1 Makassar City MTs Negeri Model 
Gunung Sari Madrasah 1116 591 53.0% 515 46.1% 36 - 40 29
2 Makassar City SMPN 33 Makassar General Public 
School 962 485 50.4% 477 49.6% 36 27
3 Makassar City SDIT Al Bayan Madrasah 286 149 52.1% 137 47.9% 20 - 25 14
4 Makassar City SMPN 3 Makassar General Public 
School 1118 620 55.5% 498 44.5% 40 38
5 Makassar City MTs Negeri 
Biringkanay Madrasah 1162 612 52.7% 550 47.3% 40 30
6 Makassar City SDI BTK -
Mamajang III Madrasah 348 154 44.3% 194 55.7% 29 12
7 Makassar City SMP YP PGRI 
(Disamakan)
General Public 
School 570 275 48.2% 295 51.8% 45 12
8 Makassar City SDN Komplek IKIP General Public 
School 549 N/A N/A N/A N/A 45 12
Average N=6,111 N=2,886 51% N=2,666 49% 36 22
9 Pangkep MTs N Ma'rang Madrasah 606 312 51.5% 294 48.5% 28 22
10 Pangkep SD 28 Tumampua II General Public 
School 698 366 52.4% 332 47.6% 37 6 
11 Pangkep SMP 2 Pangkajene General Public 
School 982 453 46.1% 528 53.8% 32 34
Average N=2,286 N=1,132 50% N=1,154 50% 32 21
12 Sidrap SD Negeri 3 Otting General Public 
School 152 80 52.6% 72 47.4% 25 6 
13 Sidrap SD Negeri 4 Otting General Public 
School 241 113 46.9% 128 53.1% 40 6 
14 Sidrap SD Negeri 10 
Pangsid
General Public 
School 430 220 51.2% 210 48.8% 32 13
128
No District Name of school Type of School
Number 
of
students
Female 
Students
% Female 
Students
Male 
Students
% Male 
Students
Average 
Students 
per class
Number 
of 
classes
15 Sidrap SD Negeri 11 
Pangkajene
General Public 
School 463 202 43.6% 261 56.4% 32 16
16 Sidrap MIS DDI Pangkajene Madrasah 124 65 52.4% 59 47.6% 21 6 
17 Sidrap SMPN 4 DUA 
PITUE 
General Public 
School 501 266 53.1% 235 46.9% 30 17
Average N=1,911 N=946 49.5% N=965 50.5% 30 10
18 Sopeng SDN 202 Walnae General Public 
School 56 24 42.9% 32 57.1% 9 1 
19 Sopeng SMPN 1 Lilirilau General Public 
School 795 422 53.1% 373 46.9% 32 25
20 soppeng SDN 28 Malaka General Public 
School 184 100 54.3% 84 45.7% 30 8 
21 soppeng
SDN 166 
Laburawung
General Public 
School 161 N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 6 
22 soppeng SDN 23 Tanete General Public 
School 179 73 40.8% 106 59.2% 27 7 
23 soppeng
SDN 1 
Lamappoloware
General Public 
School 307 163 53.1% 144 46.9% 23 14
24 soppeng
SMP N 3 
Watansoppeng
General Public 
School 420 189 45.0% 231 55.0% 20 21
25 soppeng SDN 161 Karya General Public 
School 239 110 46.0% 129 54.0% 27 9 
26 soppeng MI As'adiyah 
cabenge Madrasah 78 38 48.7% 40 51.3% 13 6 
27 soppeng MTS N Takalala Madrasah 413 215 52.1% 198 47.9% 27 15
28 soppeng
SDN 139 
Tokebbeng
General Public 
School 142 66 46.5% 76 53.5% 20 6 
Average N=2,974 N=1,362 45.8% N=1,413 54.2% 23 11
Grand Total 13282 6363 47.9% 6198 46.7% 30 16