Attachment 9 - Assessment of Higher Education Institutional Capacityl.pdf

April 2009

This report was produced for the USAID/Indonesia under a Task Order 25 of the Global Evaluation and Monitoring (GEM II) BPA, EDH-E-25-08-00003-00. It was prepared by the Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. Its authors are David Evans, Cornelia Flora, Gary Goodpastor, Peter Shepherd, and Kenneth Tolo.

ASSESSMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY IN SELECTED

GEOGRAPHIC AND SUBJECT AREAS

nyusuf Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT-9

nyusuf Typewritten Text

ASSESSMENT OF HIGHER

EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL

CAPACITY IN SELECTED

GEOGRAPHIC AND SUBJECT AREAS

Prepared by:

David Evans, Chief of Party

Gary Goodpastor, J.D.

Kenneth Tolo, Ph.D.

Peter Shepherd, D.B.A.

Cornelia Flora, Ph.D.

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Indonesia Higher Education Institutional Capacity Assessment

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ i Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ v Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... vi

I. Introduction

A. Evaluation Objectives and Scope of Work (SOW) C. Constraints in Undertaking the Evaluation D. Structure of the Report

II. Background

A. Overview of Indonesia Education System B. Government of Indonesia Strategy for Higher Education

III. Findings

A. Education Management (EM) S2 Programs

1) Introduction

2) Findings by Task

3) Observations

B. Master of Business Administration (MM) S2 Programs

1) Introduction

2) Findings by Task

3) Observations

C. Public Administration (PA) S2 Programs

1) Introduction

2) Findings by Task

3) Observations

D. Agriculture Extension and Food Security

1) Introduction

2) Findings by Task

3) Observations

E. Legal Education Assessment (S1)

1) Introduction

2) Findings by Task

3) Observations

IV. Cross-cutting Observations

A. Background B. Cross-Cutting Findings C. Areas for Investment D. Steps for Capacity Development of Indonesian HEIs and Key Programs

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. ii

Appendices Appendix A: Scope of Work Appendix B: Selected List of Documents Consulted Appendix C: List of HEIs visited Appendix D: List of Individuals Interviewed Appendix E: USAID ELIPS project Appendix F: Information on Selected HEIs

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. iii

Acronyms

Indonesian Higher Education Institutions Visited

IPMI Institut Pengembangan Manajemen Indonesia (Jakarta) IPB Institut Pertanian Bogor ITB Institut Teknologi Bandung LAN Lembaga Administrasi Negara PMBS Sekolah Bisnis Prasetiya Mulya (Jakarta) STIA-LAN Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Administrasi – Lembaga Administrasi Negara UGM Universitas Gadjah Mada (Yogyakarta) UI Universitas Indonesia (Jakarta and Depok) UKSW Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana (Salatiga) UNHAS Universitas Hasanuddin (Makassar) UNM Universitas Negeri Makassar UNPAD Universitas Padjadjaran (Bandung) UNS Universitas Sebelas Maret (Solo) UNSYIAH Universitas Syiah Kuala (Banda Aceh) UNY Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta UPI Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (Bandung) USU Universitas Sumatera Utara (Medan)

Indonesian Organizations

AAETE Agency for Agricultural Education, Training and Extension BHK Badan Hukum Kerjasama BAN-PT National Accreditation Board for Higher Education BAPPENAS National Planning Board BUUD Village Unit Private Companies DGHE Directorate General of Higher Education, MONE DPR/DPRD Central/Local Parliaments IDT Presidential Instruction for Underdeveloped Villages FH Fakultas Hukum (Law Faculty) INHERENT Indonesian Higher Education Network ISMAPI Association of Education Management Graduates KUD Village Cooperatives MenPAN Ministry of Administrative Reform MONE Ministry of National Education ROI Republic of Indonesia SEAMOLEC Southeast Asian Minister of Education Organization Regional

Open Learning Center

Other

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution AIST National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. iv

AVRDC Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center BIMAS Community Guidance CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research DBE-1 Decentralized Basic Education-1 (USAID) DBE-2 Decentralized Basic Education-2 (USAID) ELIPS Project Economic Law, Information and Procurement Systems Project

(USAID)

EM Education Management FA Faculty of Agriculture GDP Gross Domestic Product GMAT Graduate Management Admissions Test HEI Higher Education Institution IASIA International Association of Schools and Institutes of

Administration ICRAF International Center for Research in Agroforestry IIAS International Institute of Administrative Sciences IPR Intellectual Property Rights JSRP Justice Sector Reform Project (USAID) LGU Land Grant University MBA Master of Business Administration MM Master of Management MOU Memorandum of Understanding NGO Non-governmental Organization PA Public Administration RIA Regulatory Impact Assessment S1 Strata One (Bachelor’s Degree)

S2 Strata Two (Master’s Degree)

S3 Strata Three (Doctoral Degree) SANREM CRSP Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management –

Collaborative Research Support Program TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language UC University of California UNC University of North Carolina USAID United States Agency for International Development

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. v

Acknowledgements

The assessment of the higher education institutional capacity in selected subject and geographic areas in Indonesia was carried out by a ten-person team consisting of: David P. Evans (Team Leader), Senior Education Consultant; Dr. Cornelia B. Flora, Senior Consultant, Agriculture; Dr. Gary Goodpaster, Senior Consultant, Legal Education; Dian T. Irawaty, Research Assistant/Interpreter; Julia Loedin, Deputy Team Leader; Dr.

Nurdin Noni, Senior Education Consultant, Vice-Rector, State University of Makassar;

Tari Savitri, Research Assistant/Interpreter; Dr. Peter Shepherd, Senior Consultant, Business Administration; Andre A. Sigit, Research Assistant/Interpreter; and Dr. Ken Tolo, Senior Consultant, Public Administration and Management and Education Management. The ten-person team was hired under a contract with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and administered by the Aguirre Division of JBS International.

The team gratefully acknowledges the assistance provided by:

• The Ministry of National Education, especially Harris Iskandar, Secretary, and Dr. Fasli Jalal, Director General, Directorate General of Higher Education;

• USAID/Jakarta, especially Elizabeth Sunindyo and Arturo Acosta, Acting Chief, Education Office;

• Rectors, Vice-Rectors, Deans, faculty members and students in the universities visited, including: Institut Pengembangan Manajemen Indonesia; Institut Pertanian Bogor; Institut Teknologi Bandung; Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Administrasi – Lembaga Administrasi Negara; Sekolah Bisnis Prasetiya Mulya; Universitas Gadjah Mada;

Universitas Hasanuddin; Universitas Indonesia; Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana; Universitas Negeri Makassar; Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta;

Universitas Padjadjaran; Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia; Universitas Sebelas Maret; Universitas Syiah Kuala; and Universitas Sumatera Utara.

To all of those people and to any others who contributed to the provision of information to the team, thank you. Without their valuable assistance the evaluation could not have been completed. Appendix D lists key people interviewed. Any errors are regrettable but the sole responsibility of the team.

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. vi

Executive Summary

I. Background

The purpose of this assessment is to assist the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to decide whether and how it might collaborate with Indonesian HEIs to increase their institutional capacity in selected geographic and subject areas in Indonesia. The five subject areas are: (a) public administration and management; (b) education management; (c) business management, leadership and entrepreneurship; (d) agriculture extension and food security; and (e) legal education. The team visited 16 HEIs in six provinces. The HEIs visited represent less than 1 percent of the total number of public and private universities in Indonesia but comprise about 20 percent of the public universities and about half of the HEIs are seen as being in the top two tiers in terms of quality.

The evaluation team used four basic methods to obtain its findings, including: reviewing HEI documents, research and background studies in education; semi-structured questions and interviews with officials of HEIs and key program stakeholders; in-depth interviews with key knowledgeable observers of higher education and stakeholders in Indonesia; and focus group discussions with mixed and single-interest (subject area) groups of HEI faculty and students.

There were several constraints to conducting the capacity assessment. First, it was difficult to collect baseline data on HEIs. The team’s research assistants gathered information by searching HEI websites and filling data gaps with follow-up telephone calls. Many HEI websites, however, offer very limited and often disparate information that did not permit comparison between HEIs. Telephone calls to gather data met with reactions ranging from resistance to indifference to mild cooperation. In all but one case, site visits to HEIs yielded good cooperation and excellent discussions but, given the limited time for visits, it was often difficult to verify and cross check information.

Second, given the scale, geographic spread, budget, and time available for travel and visiting each HEI, there was insufficient time for the evaluation team to undertake a detailed, in-depth analysis of each HEI or each program within each HEI. Third, the sample of HEIs selected for interview was small and could not be random owing to the logistics of visiting at least 12 HEIs in selected areas within three weeks. In addition, the selection factor for some schools (high reputation) may have skewed the findings toward the best practices, and they, therefore, may not be fully representative.

II. Findings

Overall, the assessment team found that a set of carefully focused and limited interventions aimed at selected HEIs and stakeholders can have a very significant impact on higher education in Indonesia as well as large and significant social, legal, economic and political impacts. Despite apparent similarities between U.S. and Indonesian HEIs, Indonesian universities, among other things, could benefit greatly from pairing with U.S.

HEIs to improve management systems, improve curriculum relevance, teaching

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. vii methodology and partnering with stakeholders, and staff upgrading, especially in technical fields.

Specific subject area findings

Education Management. While Education Management programs at the master’s level (EM S2) have served their stakeholders to some extent by inviting their participation in curriculum reviews, seminars, and student projects, there remains a significant disconnect between the programs and stakeholders. Courses largely are theoretical and lecture-based rather than student-focused and problem-based; the programs report that 40 percent of the EM S2 program is practical rather than theoretical, but “practical” courses often include those that address “practical” topics only through lectures and theory. Stakeholders are not meaningfully engaged in curriculum reviews and practical research. The programs tend to provide services to and for stakeholders, but not always with them; collaboration often is one-way, with programs inviting stakeholders to HEIs but seldom going to stakeholder offices.

Because most students have worked in education-related offices before entering the S2 programs, the programs assume that practical courses are unnecessary; the students are expected to integrate their prior experiences with the theory in the courses. Management factors, academic as well as administrative, also inhibit program effectiveness, relevance, and quality.

The team assessed EM S2 programs at four HEIs. Of those institutions, the program at UPI appears to be best suited to benefit from and be the lead Indonesian HEI for two reasons. First, unlike the other HEIs, most of the students come from and return to their jobs in the management and administration of public education services. Second, UPI appears most ready to implement USAID-supported EM assistance, working with other EM S2 programs and their primary education stakeholders as well as with U.S. EM S2 programs that partner effectively with U.S.

education stakeholders.

A USAID-supported EM assistance initiative might build on (and replicate at other Indonesian EM S2 programs) the UPI/DBE-1 partnership on preparing staff and students to support district office strategic planning, school-based management, and related priorities. Key to the success of all these initiatives will be the active use of ICT services, including INTERNET and SEAMOLEC Jakarta. Such initiatives can best be implemented in a step-by-step approach of comprehensive assessments and analyses; curricular, human resource management, ICT, management, and other program/HEI interventions; and the development of program, management, and human resource strategic plans.

Business Management. Master of Business Administration (MBA) courses are called Master of Management (MM) and are very common in Indonesia. Most MM programs reviewed appear similar and seek to take managers to a higher level of performance and understanding of the management process. The 12 HEIs visited, however, revealed a wide range of facilities, faculty qualifications, and capacity to

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. viii deliver MM services. The capacity to deliver services ranged from internationally benchmarked, high quality, high fee programs to faculties with low levels of resources, limited cooperation agreements, poor faculty qualifications and low quality of graduates. All programs reviewed were very popular, with enrollments at some HEIs reaching 2000 students per year. The Jakarta area had the biggest concentration of MM providers and most of the high quality programs.

MM courses in Java are highly developed, and it may appear that there is no role for the U.S. government. Indonesia, however, has other areas of the country that can serve as engines of growth but generally have poor quality MM programs. These areas need good local HEIs and managers to promote regional economic development. USAID should consider addressing these access and equity issues.

The impact of a small investment on selected regional MM programs could be huge.

The focus of the program should be on HEI capacity building and could take numerous forms, including developing practical curricula, faculty training, development of public/private partnerships, and research and design programs.

Many of these HEIs will also need some management strengthening in budgeting and financial management, strategic and operational planning, infrastructure management, and human resource and student management. These are skills that could be developed under a partnership with a developed U.S. MM program.

Public Administration. The team assessed Public Administration (PA) master’s (S2) programs at six HEIs and STIA-LAN in Jakarta and Makassar. STIA-LAN is the public administration training arm of the Government of Indonesia (GOI). Most of the HEI students come from and return to jobs in local government offices and national ministries. Increasingly, some students are entering these programs directly after completing S1 degrees. The STIA-LAN S2 program in each of Jakarta and Makassar graduates about 200 students per year; most students in Jakarta come from national ministry jobs, while most students in Makassar come from local government offices.

None of these programs focus on serving students specifically with education interests or positions.

The PA S2 programs have effectively served their stakeholders by working effectively with local government officials. Especially impressive in terms of stakeholder interactions is UGM, which not only conducts regular donor-funded local government training sessions on planning, assessment and other topics, but also uses a demand-driven student cohort admissions process that enables students to begin their S2 program and return to work as soon as possible. Nevertheless, all of the assessed PA S2 programs need to improve their services to stakeholders given the substantial challenges facing local government offices. The PA S2 program/HEI “academic” culture is difficult to change and the curriculum is still primarily lecture-based and theoretical, not problem-based and practical, with stakeholder insights and views often not taken seriously by the faculty of these programs. The programs assume that students, most of whom enter these programs from and return to local government offices, do not need practical courses. The lack of good stakeholder

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. ix needs analysis also limits program effectiveness. Planning and management systems at STIA-LAN are especially outdated or deficient.

The UGM PA S2 program is best able to provide the necessary leadership for the implementation of USAID-supported assistance to Indonesian university PA programs, working with UI, UNPAD, UNHAS, and perhaps other such PA S2 programs, as well as with U.S. HEIs/PA S2 programs that partner effectively with local government stakeholders. Such a PA initiative should enhance the decentralized public sector and foster transparency, accountability, responsibility, and participation, as well as S2-level education for future public sector managers.

The significant management system deficiencies in STIA-LAN also need to be addressed, although such deficiencies might better be addressed separately from other PA initiatives.

Agriculture Extension and Food Security. The extension program in Indonesia is firmly under the Ministry of Agriculture, even with the reform promulgated in Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 16, Year 2006 on Agricultural, Fishery and Forestry Extension System. While some Faculties of Agriculture (FAs) are engaged in service projects, there is neither budget for those projects nor systematic linkages with decentralized government units that now are officially charged to give advice and oversight to extension. There are newly instituted – and unfunded – Extension Coordinating Agencies at the provincial level, where FAs could have an institutional impact and in fact take leadership.

Research in the institutions involves undergraduates as well as graduate students and is relevant to issues facing localities, regions, and the nation, from participatory bean breeding to sustainable agriculture to value chains. The premier FAs currently have a vast array of contacts with international institutions, including some Land Grant Universities (LGUs) in the U.S. However, few if any of these linkages involve extension. Universities outside Java have staff trained at the major Indonesian universities, but no on-going collaborative research efforts. Occasionally, staff from the outstanding FAs give lectures and short courses at outlying universities.

There is great interest in working with U.S. institutions as a mechanism for international publication, critical to the Indonesian university reward structure.

Institutional exchanges and collaborative research that required the strong universities to establish on-going partnerships with outlying universities in order to receive funding for linkages to U.S. LGUs, particularly around the extension-research nexus, could be effective.

Legal Education. A serious problem hindering the development of democracy and improved governance in Indonesia is the justice system. Most simply and starkly put, Indonesian citizens cannot rely on ordinary courts and other major institutions of the justice system – the prosecution services and the police forces – to deliver fair and impartial justice; nor to protect the rights or citizens; nor to be a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches of government. Ordinary

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. x courts are widely reputed to be corrupt, inefficient, and ineffective in adjudication and the delivery of justice. The prosecutorial and police services are also corrupted and fail; they fail to meet high standards of integrity and professionalism and to respect human rights and constraints on the abuse of power.

Indonesian legal education has been for the most part formal and theoretical, lecture-based, and not practical or skills-oriented. There are several reasons for this. First, Indonesia’s legal system is a civil law inheritance from the Dutch, and European civil law puts a premium on the development of comprehensive legal theory and as complete a system of rules as possible. Second, Indonesian culture, particularly on Java, is one that values hierarchy, seniority, and deference, and a formal, lecture-based system fits well in such a culture. Third, most Indonesian law faculty lecturers, at least when young and in the early stages of their careers, have no practice experience. As their own learning was primarily theory- and lecture-based, so too is their own teaching. Lastly, until recently, the Indonesian legal system did not lend itself to case study, case analysis, and problem-based approaches.

There are a variety of issues in using traditional approaches to address the problems in legal education. In curriculum development, most of the Indonesia legal education curriculum is determined by national and faculty mandate, and there seems not to be much room in the curriculum for elective courses, the provision of course credit for activities like clinics or internships, or the addition of simulation or practice courses.

Introducing new courses might not be an easy task. In the area of teaching methods, the easiest practice-oriented courses to add to the curriculum of Indonesian legal education are the simulation-based skills courses: writing, interviewing and counseling, negotiation and mediation, and, possibly, advocacy. If there is a problem in this regard, it lies in the materials, and any effort would require a special Indonesian materials development effort. Because of a dearth of case law, it is difficult to incorporate case-based learning, and all that this implies in terms of case analysis and critical thinking, in many Indonesian law courses. Aside from the use of simulations, cases, and problem sets, it will likely be difficult to help Indonesian law faculty make their courses more practically oriented. Many law school lecturers simply do not have any practical legal experience.

Given the state of legal education in Indonesia and current development possibilities, there are some strategies that may lead to more fundamental reform. These include, among others, the development of justice and governance reform research institutions and public information campaigns, in-depth development activities at leading law schools, improving the recruitment of system officials and their training, the development of mediation and regulatory impact assessment centers, and law clinics, and linking Pusdiklat legal education training with law school legal education.

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. xi

III. Cross-cutting Findings

1) Similarities greater than differences: Indonesian HEIs are much more similar to

U.S. HEIs than one might expect. Most faculty programs and course offerings are very similar in design to those found in U.S. institutions. Moreover, most course syllabi are very similar to those in the U.S. Not surprisingly, many faculty members were educated in the U.S. or Europe, and the forces of globalization and international communication make the sharing of information easier.

2) Support systems deficient: U.S. support systems for HEIs are much better developed and funded. It appears that Indonesian HEIs have underdeveloped management and operational systems. U.S. curriculum and learning materials are better developed and more fully available than those in Indonesia. U.S. faculty appear to be better educated, with more experience (for example, there is a much higher percentage of Ph.D.s relative to total faculty or students in the U.S.).

3) Low relevance: Most programs in most HEIs appear to be largely theoretical, rather than practical. Student-centered, problem-oriented learning materials like case studies are largely absent. Students and alumni assert that their education and training was largely theory-based and not very useful for their current employment. Many faculty members claim that they don’t have the materials, training, or mandate to offer practical courses. Employment waits after graduation range from 6 months to 2 years. HEI tracer studies of graduates are largely informal and mostly used to generate donations rather than assist graduates.

4) Wide variation in HEI quality: There are some very good public and private sector HEIs, but after the top tiers the quality appears to drop off rapidly.

Although it is difficult to tie down quality measures and quality assurance efforts are under development at many HEIs, many lower ranked HEIs offer poor quality education services, especially those in the private sector.

5) Equity a major concern: HEIs in Indonesia generally perpetuate income inequalities. Students at the top-ranked HEIs generally come from the ranks of middle and upper income families, while students in the middle and lower tier HEIs get students from the middle to lower income groups. Middle- to lower-ranked HEIs appear to supply most of the people in national and local government and NGOs, while top tier graduates find employment in high-paying private sector firms.

6) HEI management constraints: There is an apparent need for improved management capacity in Indonesian HEIs. Financial and operational systems may be deficient in many HEIs, and standard operating procedures are often lacking.

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. xii

7) Absence of action-oriented research centers: Indonesia has few HEI-linked research organizations and think tanks to foster public debate on a variety of issues, including HEI reform. The development of HEI research centers as well as support to umbrella organizations aimed at cooperation among HEIs might aid and stimulate HEI reform.

8) Focus, Focus, Focus: Indonesia is a huge country with a large number of HEIs. It would appear that, should USAID elect to support the higher education sector, it should focus on a few high-impact programs in selected HEIs. Some of those areas that appear to be possible areas for intervention are:

• Human resource development (short-term training, degree programs, staff exchange, team teaching)

• University management (developing strategic plans, standard operating procedures, job descriptions)

• Curriculum (developing programs that meet stakeholders needs, and approaches for curriculum development)

• Quality assurance (developing instruments to monitor and evaluate quality)

• ICT (identifying potential strengths and weaknesses)

• Applied research (focused research to achieve special objectives in target areas)

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 1

I. Introduction

A. Evaluation Objectives and Scope of Work (SOW)

This report assesses higher education institutional capacity in selected geographic and subject areas in Indonesia. The three geographic areas of Indonesia were to be Aceh, Java, and Papua. The four subject areas were to be: (a) public administration and management, particularly the management and administration of public education services; (b) business management, leadership and entrepreneurship; (c) agriculture extension and food security; and (d) legal education. With the agreement of USAID, the assessment dropped Papua from consideration and split the subject area, “public administration and management, particularly the management and administration of educational services,” into two areas: 1) public administration and 2) education management.

The assessment is intended only as a first stage, snap-shot appraisal to gather information about a sample of higher education institutions (HEIs). The assessment is not intended to be an in-depth analysis.

The purpose of this assessment is to assist the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to decide whether and how it might collaborate with Indonesian HEIs to increase their institutional capacity to address critical social and economic development needs. To that end, the assessment will attempt to address three overarching questions:

1) To what extent are HEIs, and what indicators suggest that selected HEIs in the selected provinces are, offering quality programs and expertise in these key development areas?

2) What actions, if any, would targeted HEIs need to take to expand their provision of programs and expertise and/or improve their quality in these key development areas? and

3) What type and amount of support, if any, would be necessary to support these institutions in expanding their provision of educational preparation and provision of expertise in these key development areas?

To complete the work above, USAID requested that the assessment undertake ten tasks (a full scope of work for the assessment is contained in Appendix A). Those tasks were:

• Task 1 - Review the list of HEIs provided by USAID and determine whether additional HEIs should be included on USAID’s list of institutions;

• Task 2 - Develop a methodology, including the questions the team will use to interview university personnel, and a work plan detailing how the assessment will be implemented;

• Task 3 - Describe the activities and programs that the selected HEIs provide in each of the substantive areas, the training and qualifications of the personnel

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 2 employed in these activities and programs, and the funding and resources used to support the activities and programs;

• Task 4 - Profile the most common types of participants for the activities and programs and their employment patterns and work performance;

• Task 5 - Profile the typical “customer” organizations and offices that these programs serve;

• Task 6 - Describe the factors that facilitate or constrain the effectiveness of these activities and programs, including whether and how the programs effectively address the interests and needs of clients and stakeholders;

• Task 7 - Describe the factors that facilitate or constrain the effectiveness of the activities and programs from a management point of view;

• Task 8 - Describe the current or prior experience of the HEIs in working with other HEIs, whether within Indonesia or internationally, and characterize the factors that appear to facilitate collaboration;

• Task 9 - Provide observations regarding a) which institutions and programs appear best situated to benefit from and effectively incorporate and apply USAID-supported assistance, including partnership programs with U.S.

institutions of higher education; and b) the types of assistance programs the team believes would be most effective in fostering an institutional capacity legacy;

• Task 10 – Present a draft report before departure from Indonesia.

B. Methodology

The assessment was conducted in February and March 2009 by a team of 5 national and 5 international consultants. The team reviewed the 46 HEIs proposed by USAID as potential HEIs for interview and, as suggested in Task 1, added two HEIs to USAID’s list, bringing the total to 48 HEIs. The assessment team then reviewed the 48 HEIs and reduced the list to 23 HEIs based on those factors that were important to USAID.

Those factors (in order of priority) were:

1. Location (within the three geographic priority areas);

2. Quality of institution (based on accreditation and reputation);

3. Number of key program areas offered within each HEI;

4. Special characteristics of the HEI (e.g., high-quality, special-purpose HEI in key subject area or one-of-a kind program);

5. Noted by interviewed USAID officers as a key HEI;

6. Positioned as a possible feeder HEI for GOI civil service positions;

7. Within reasonable proximity of other “must-visit” HEIs.

Through document and website reviews of the 23 HEIs, and considering the cost of site visits, the assessment team further reduced the list of HEIs to 16 HEIs for site visits.

The team decided not to visit HEIs in Papua because of limited offerings in the key subject areas, cost considerations, and the time involved traveling to the province. A methodology and work plan (Task 2) was developed and approved by USAID prior to proceeding with the site visits.

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 3

Once the list of HEIs for site visits was established, the assessment team used four basic methods to obtain its findings, including:

• Review of HEI documents, and research and background studies in education (see Appendix B for a list of documents consulted);

• Semi-structured questions and interviews with officials of HEIs and key program stakeholders (see Appendix D for list of individuals interviewed);

• In-depth interviews with key knowledgeable observers of higher education in Indonesia; and

• Focus group discussions with mixed and single-interest (subject area) groups of HEI faculty and students.

The stakeholders the team interviewed included: the Ministry of Education (MONE);

public sector officials at the national, provincial, and district levels; private sector representatives and employers; rectors, vice rectors, deans, faculty members and lecturers; alumni; and students. The assessment team developed a set of questions for each of the five major client groups (employers, professional associations, HEI administrators and program faculty, HEI program alumni, and students) and used these questions as illustrative interview guides for our discussions with HEIs and other representatives.

The team visited a total of 16 HEIs in six provinces (Nangroe Aceh, Sumatera Ultra, D.K.I. Jakarta, Jawa Barat, D.I. Yogjakarta, and Sulawesi Selatan). The 16 HEIs visited represent less than 1 percent of the total number of public and private universities in Indonesia (there are about 2,900 HEIs) but comprise about 20 percent of the public universities and about half of the HEIs that are seen as being in the top two tiers in terms of quality. The team interviewed scores of stakeholders in these HEIs, many in focus groups, making it impractical to record all the names of the persons interviewed (Appendix D lists many of the people interviewed).

C. Constraints in Undertaking the Evaluation

There were several constraints to this assessment of HEIs. First, it was difficult to collect baseline data on HEIs. The team’s research assistants gathered information by searching HEI websites and filling data gaps with follow up telephone calls. Many HEI websites, however, offer very limited and often disparate information that did not permit comparison between HEIs. Telephone calls to gather data met with reactions ranging from resistance to indifference to mild cooperation. In all but one case, site visits to HEIs yielded good cooperation and excellent discussions but, given the limited time for visits, it was often difficult to verify and cross check information. Nevertheless, the team believes it has produced relatively good baseline data and information on the 16 HEIs that were interviewed, useful data and information on the 23 HEIs considered for site visits, and spotty data and information on the list of 48 institutions (please see Appendix F for data about the HEIs).

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 4

Second, given the scale, geographic spread, budget, and time available for travel and visiting each HEI, there was insufficient time for the evaluation team to undertake a detailed, in-depth analysis of each HEI or each program within each HEI. For example, the assessment team was able to review listed program offerings and course syllabi but was unable to observe what actually occurs in the classroom. Similarly, the team was able to question faculty members about practices used to improve the practicality and relevance of course offerings but was unable to follow up on apparent inconsistencies, like student assertions that courses were largely theoretical and did not generally include practical application of the theory. As a practical matter, the visits were only long enough to permit impressionistic, albeit informed, conclusions.

Third, the sample of HEIs selected for interview was small and could not be random owing to the logistics of visiting at least 12 HEIs in selected areas within three weeks.

In addition, the selection factor for some schools (high reputation) may have skewed the findings toward the best practices and they, therefore, may not be fully representative.

These constraints were taken into account by the assessment team in evaluating the data and forming conclusions.

D. Structure of the Report

The report is organized in five main sections. Section II provides background information about the structure and nature of the Indonesian higher education system and the Government of Indonesia’s current higher education strategy. The next Section outlines the evaluation findings in each of the five key program areas, including a profile of the HEIs and their graduates and customers, the technical and managerial factors that facilitate or constrain the effectiveness of programs, and their experience working with other HEIs, domestic and international. Section IV summarizes the assessment team’s observations about the Indonesian higher education sector.

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 5

II. Background

A. Overview of Indonesia Education System

Education in Indonesia begins with six years of primary schooling, followed by three years of junior secondary and three years of senior high school, which leads to university. Only about half of the students who enter primary school make it to secondary school, and only about half again will graduate. About 17 percent of the population aged 19-24 (25.3 million) enroll in some kind of tertiary education.

Despite rapid progress achieving almost universal enrollment in primary education under a centralized management system over the last 30 years, significant problems in the primary and secondary education systems continue to exist, including low public funding, poor completion rates, low teacher qualifications, poor classroom methodologies, and poor educational quality, where Indonesia ranks low in international testing, particularly in science and math. Officially literacy is about 84 percent, but functional literacy rates and rates of literacy in English are much lower.

Improving educational quality with limited central government funds is a key educational challenge. Given the magnitude of the problem, the Government of Indonesia (GOI) has initiated a decentralization process in the hopes of spreading the governance, financial, and managerial responsibility for improving education across different stakeholders. The GOI is also attempting to strengthen accountability mechanisms.

Under decentralization, School Committees and district governments are expected to hold schools and teachers accountable for educational quality, and the GOI is developing school and teacher accreditation criteria and minimum service standards to measure their performance. Unfortunately, district governments are ill-prepared to manage the approximately 220,000 primary, junior secondary and senior secondary schools or the more than 1.7 million teachers.

In higher education, there are about 2,900 institutions in Indonesia, which is remarkable considering that most of the oldest institutions only date from the 1940’s and 1950’s.

As late as 1940, there were only about 200 university students in Indonesia. Currently, there are about 131 public higher education institutions, including 47 public universities, 6 Institutes, 26 Polytechnics, and 52 Islamic institutions, in Indonesia. Public higher education institutions enroll about 1.5 million students, about a third of which are enrolled in Islamic institutions. The 82 state-supported public HEIs enroll less than 22 percent of existing higher education students. The private sector higher education institutions number more than 2,600 but only about 372 are universities. These private institutions offer some of the best education in Indonesia, but the vast majority offer sub-standard education. More than 2.4 million students are enrolled in private higher education institutions.

In Indonesia, the types of higher education consist of: 1) non-university level studies or higher technical/vocational education, which includes academies and polytechnic

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 6 institutes; and 2) university level, which includes schools of higher learning, institutes, and universities. The first type awards diploma level qualifications, and programs usually last up to three years with some four years. The second type, university level, consists of three stages of degrees, namely S1(Sarjana) awarded after four years of full-time study with about 144 credits, S2 (Master) awarded after a further two-year study plus research with about 36-50 credits, and S3 (Doctorate) awarded after three to four years study beyond the S2.

At present, the Indonesian labor force is dominated by primary school graduates (slightly more than 50 percent of the labor force has attained primary education) who have basic literacy, math, and technology skills. About 20 percent of the labor force has junior secondary or junior vocational school attainment, and about 19 percent have achieved high school or vocational high school. Less than 4 percent of the population has attained a university degree, which is low by international standards and hampers the nation’s efforts to move from low value-added industries to higher value-added production.

Overall, the teaching staff of the public and private higher education institutions number about 155,000. Only about 11,000 of the teaching staff (7 percent) have Doctorates, while about 61,000 (39 percent) have Masters. The percentage of teacher staff with Masters or Doctorates is low by international standards. The student/teacher ratio is about 28 to 1, which is comparatively good, but the student/ doctorate ratio is about 380 to 1, which is again low by international standards. Moreover, about 70 percent of the teaching staff was educated in the social sciences, and this relative lack of technical skills within the teaching staff of higher education institutions may limit the nation’s economic competitiveness.

In addition to the relatively limited numbers and depth of human resources in the higher education sector, many Indonesian observers of the higher education system note additional challenges for higher education institutions in Indonesia, including:

• Limited government funding – over the last 20 years, public expenditure on higher education has averaged less than 3 percent of the national budget and less than one half of one percent of Gross National Product (GNP);

• Low access to higher education – with low transition rates from primary to secondary and secondary to higher education, there are huge wasted human resources that contribute to, and perpetuate, social, economic and political inequity and result in huge wastage of private resources as opportunistic private higher education providers fill the gap with poor quality alternatives;

• Low educational quality and relevance of higher education – many claim that low public funding, low teacher qualifications, and poor classroom methodologies, result in overly theoretical programs and poor educational quality in terms of problem solving, low knowledge, and practical skills development;

• Limited higher education management capacity – with only seven of the 82 public sector HEIs autonomous, many claim that the management of HEIs is inefficient, and not transparent or accountable, and many changes are needed to strengthen

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 7 information systems, human resource management, quality assurance, and monitoring and evaluation.

B. Government of Indonesia Strategy for Higher Education

Based on the challenges outlined above, among others, the GOI launched a higher education strategy for 2003-2010 based on three pillars. The GOI objectives and higher education sector strategy priorities are encompassed in the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE), Ministry of National Education (MONE) Higher Education Long Term Strategy 2003-2010. The three pillars of the strategy are:

• National competiveness - The objective of higher education is to contribute to the nation’s competitiveness, demonstrating its relevance and sensitivity to its natural and social environment;

• Decentralization and autonomy - Given the diversity and the nature of the world’s largest archipelago, the past policies of centralization are inappropriate for managing the higher education sector, and the system needs to be decentralized so that institutions receive greater autonomy;

• Organizational health - To promote organizational health by improving internal management practices requires a gradual approach.

Within these pillars, the GOI expects to develop a higher education system that promotes quality, access and equity, and autonomy.

To promote national competitiveness, the implementation strategy aims to:

• Promote greater public funding and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its use;

• Focus HEIs on quality rather than on quantity of graduates;

• Shift from teaching-centered to learning-centered methods;

• Improve pre- and in-service teacher training;

• Use a system of competitive grants to encourage institutional development, investment and research;

• Bundle any research strategy with the human resource development strategy;

• Improve students’ “soft skills” to improve their creativity, initiative, innovation and experiential knowledge;

• Develop flexible learning environments, different teaching styles and classroom practices;

• Increase the participation rate in higher education without compromising quality;

• Expand opportunities to higher education through life-long and distance education; and

• Promote affirmative action programs through scholarships, student loans, and vouchers.

To promote autonomy, the DGHE will:

• Create a regulatory environment and financial incentives;

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 8

• Restructure public financing by conducting rigorous cost analysis, measure budget performance and reduce rigidity;

• Introduce competitive funding mechanisms;

• Synchronize budget sources with a consolidated and integrated budgeting system;

• Reform university personnel management systems based on merit performance, institutional leadership, and accountability;

• Consider alternative forms for employing university staffing;

• Provide tax incentives for private donation, university/industry collaboration, establishing science parks; and

• Introduce formula-based restructuring of the recurrent budget.

To promote organizational health, the DGHE will:

• Develop the management capacity at the DGHE to carry out the reforms;

• Rely more heavily on peer organizations to fulfill key functions;

• Systematically internationalize the accreditation system;

• Develop capacity building programs tailored to different levels of institutional needs;

• Practice good governance procedures;

• Encourage the merger of HEIs, where beneficial;

• Promote greater collaboration between institutions in teaching and research;

• Encourage internal collaboration through interdepartmental and cross-faculty study;

• Promote international understanding, in part through international exchange programs.

The DGHE is in the process of revising the higher education strategy but the pillars and implementation strategy outlined above are still currently in force. Conversations with the DGHE suggest that the emphasis of the next strategic plan will continue to be on improving the quality, relevance and equity of higher education.

GEM II - Aguirre Division of JBS International, Inc. 9

III. Findings

A. Education Management (EM) S2 Programs

1) Introduction

The assessment team identified 11 Indonesian higher education institutions (HEIs) on USAID’s initial HEI list as offering S1 or S2 programs in Education Management (EM); 6 were included in the reduced list of 23 HEIs, with 4 included among the 16 HEIs to visit.

These 4 HEIs, each of which offers an EM S2 program (the program level on which USAID requested the team focus), include public and private HEIs as well as both the national education university and former teacher training institutes:

• Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI), Bandung

• Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM)

• Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

• Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana (UKSW), Salatiga

Note: One HEI visited was Universitas Syiah Kuala (UNSYIAH) in Banda Aceh. In its initial review of programs, the team did not identify in advance of its visit to UNSYIAH that it has an EM S2 program; if it had known this earlier, the team would also have assessed this program.

The program concentrations in these 4 HEIs differ depending on their institutional missions:

• UPI…