Interesting article! Reading archives and historical records of development reminds us of two things: 1) the progress we have made as a nation; and 2) that many of the challenges we face are recurring issues, largely because we have failed to learn from the lessons of the past.
A small comment from me: comparing the SD Inpres program with Sekolah Rakyat is not quite accurate, or at the very least, should be done carefully and proportionally. The two were framed within different theories of change.
SD Inpres had a clear theory of change: the centralistic President at the time allocated surplus state funds to invest in the education sector because of 1) high illiteracy rates, 2) a severe lack of elementary school facilities, especially in remote areas, and 3) efforts to raise national education levels. Of course, there were more precise metrics used under the PELITA plans. Moreover, Esther Duflo’s research also measured the “impact” of SD Inpres, providing another set of useful metrics.
On the other hand, Sekolah Rakyat operated under a different rationale. Does expanding access to education for the poor necessarily require building new schools? The establishment of Sekolah Inpres took place in areas where infrastructure was lacking. In contrast, Sekolah Rakyat relied on facilities under the Ministry of Social Affairs to build new ones without considering the existing facailities surrounding, which clearly was not cost-effective. Expansion of access to education could instead be pursued through enhancing the existing programs like the Kartu Indonesia Pintar or the School Operational Assistance Program (BOS).
Furthermore, we cannot ignore the factor of decentralization in education, which makes both norms and implementation of primary education, let alone for the poor, highly dependent on the capacity of local governments, the fiscal capacity of those regions, and the political landscape (both power struggle and budgetary) in each regions.
Further question: Is Sekolah Rakyat intended to bypass that decentralization in primary education? Perhaps it’s based on the assumption that the central government needs to take over the issue of expanding access to education for the poor>
Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment, and that great distinction you made about the different theories of change at play - really great way to frame it!
My apologies that the mention of SD Inpres and Sekolah Rakyat came off as a direct comparison. I was more so trying to explore what precedent has been set in how education reform is approached, especially when it comes to state-led efforts to expand access.
That said, you're completely right. Among other things you've mentioned, that very approach to locational execution (SD Inpres based on data about access to education; Sekolah Rakyat just based on... yang paling gampang aja kali ya wkwk) makes for vastly different outcomes.
As for your question... I think it does seem like Sekolah Rakyat carries an implicit assumption from the the central government that it needs to play a stronger role in addressing educational access, but I'd have to do a lot more research to give a strong opinion if this counts as seeking to “bypass” decentralization. Funny you bring this up - we're looking to discuss decentralization in our next issue, and will definitely give this a think!
Thank you again for your awesome comment, we really love to get input from readers and this one is so especially great! :)
This edition's discussion question: If Indonesia were to have another influx of cash, what should we do with it? Who would you trust to advocate for this cause?
Interesting article! Reading archives and historical records of development reminds us of two things: 1) the progress we have made as a nation; and 2) that many of the challenges we face are recurring issues, largely because we have failed to learn from the lessons of the past.
A small comment from me: comparing the SD Inpres program with Sekolah Rakyat is not quite accurate, or at the very least, should be done carefully and proportionally. The two were framed within different theories of change.
SD Inpres had a clear theory of change: the centralistic President at the time allocated surplus state funds to invest in the education sector because of 1) high illiteracy rates, 2) a severe lack of elementary school facilities, especially in remote areas, and 3) efforts to raise national education levels. Of course, there were more precise metrics used under the PELITA plans. Moreover, Esther Duflo’s research also measured the “impact” of SD Inpres, providing another set of useful metrics.
On the other hand, Sekolah Rakyat operated under a different rationale. Does expanding access to education for the poor necessarily require building new schools? The establishment of Sekolah Inpres took place in areas where infrastructure was lacking. In contrast, Sekolah Rakyat relied on facilities under the Ministry of Social Affairs to build new ones without considering the existing facailities surrounding, which clearly was not cost-effective. Expansion of access to education could instead be pursued through enhancing the existing programs like the Kartu Indonesia Pintar or the School Operational Assistance Program (BOS).
Furthermore, we cannot ignore the factor of decentralization in education, which makes both norms and implementation of primary education, let alone for the poor, highly dependent on the capacity of local governments, the fiscal capacity of those regions, and the political landscape (both power struggle and budgetary) in each regions.
Further question: Is Sekolah Rakyat intended to bypass that decentralization in primary education? Perhaps it’s based on the assumption that the central government needs to take over the issue of expanding access to education for the poor>
Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment, and that great distinction you made about the different theories of change at play - really great way to frame it!
My apologies that the mention of SD Inpres and Sekolah Rakyat came off as a direct comparison. I was more so trying to explore what precedent has been set in how education reform is approached, especially when it comes to state-led efforts to expand access.
That said, you're completely right. Among other things you've mentioned, that very approach to locational execution (SD Inpres based on data about access to education; Sekolah Rakyat just based on... yang paling gampang aja kali ya wkwk) makes for vastly different outcomes.
As for your question... I think it does seem like Sekolah Rakyat carries an implicit assumption from the the central government that it needs to play a stronger role in addressing educational access, but I'd have to do a lot more research to give a strong opinion if this counts as seeking to “bypass” decentralization. Funny you bring this up - we're looking to discuss decentralization in our next issue, and will definitely give this a think!
Thank you again for your awesome comment, we really love to get input from readers and this one is so especially great! :)
This edition's discussion question: If Indonesia were to have another influx of cash, what should we do with it? Who would you trust to advocate for this cause?
We'd love to hear your take. Discuss here!
- The Reformist Team
Never knew what SD Inpres means and always curious, now suddenly I see