The EFA 2000 Assessment: Country Reports Homepage of the World Education Forum
   Indonesia
Contents of country report Homepage of country reports Country reports listed alphabetically Country reports by region



Previous Page Next Page



budget, grant or loan from abroad, and community self-financing. At the end of three years, students take a test similar to the one taken by the regular lower secondary education students. The achievement exams are nationally organized, therefore, the Packet B graduates will have the same quality as lower secondary education graduates. The graduates receive certificates, equal rights and recognition to pursue further education.

In order to find out the results of instruction during 1997/1998 a PEHAPTANAS was organized in cooperation with the Examination Center, MOEC. Out of 94.345 participants 89.62% successfully passed. Among participants who passed the PEHAPTANAS tests, some of them pursue a higher educational level (Upper Secondary School).

c. Learning Achievement and Outcomes

The effectiveness of primary education program is reflected by student performance and its outcome. Various approaches are applied to measure study performance and outcomes, with approaches very much depending on the interpretation of study outcome. Some countries get access to study performance by measuring in how far students master curriculum matter through exams or tests; others measure their mastering a range of essential study competence of standard tests for basic skills or tests for functional literacy, numeracy literacy, and daily necessary skills.

The Measurement of Learning Achievement Project (MLAP) emphasizes students’ study performance at the fourth year or later, at the time the students have developed their ability/skills in language and numeracy continually. Those approaches have produced study performances full of variety both inter and intra states. Even though, a major part of those approaches resulted in access to study results from the study process in schools. Meanwhile, the objective of this part is also to get access to study results of all children (including those who are not within the formal school system). This is very important in countries where a large part of children of certain age are not/not yet enrolled in schools. For such countries special efforts are necessary to get access to study results of children at a certain age.

Furthermore, whatever approach is selected by a country in getting access to children’s study result, such approach had better not just measure cognitive ability only as done by many schools currently. Taking into consideration that schools are just one of several study environments, access to children’s study results should also consider, the four pillars of education (Delors’ Commission) namely: learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together.

One of the priorities in educational development in Indonesia, is the enhancement of educational quality for all channels, types and levels of education. The quality of education is reflected by some aspects, i.e. the quality of input, of the process and of the outcomes. One system for measuring study outcome is by using grades resulting from EBTANAS (National Final Phase of Study Evaluation). Based on availability of data, the data to be analyzed in this section comprises study outcomes within the school system (SLTP Ebtanas, data of fourth grade SD students promoted to fifth grade, repeaters and drop-outs), and study outcomes from outside the formal school system (Literacy Grade for Age Group 15-24). Up till now the Ebtanas on SD level is applied in each province, only some of the provinces are applying the tests designed by Pusat Pengujian (Examination Center) with the result that SD Ebtanas cannot yet be compared at the national level.

1. The SLTP EBTANAS

The Examination Center puts forth that before 1994/1995 the NEM (Genuine Ebtanas Grades) could not be compared from year to year. However, starting 1994/1995 the tests for SLTP EBTANAS are standardized as the test problems have been calibrated into a national standard scale, so the results can be compared, both among schools in a certain province and among the various provinces at national level and even EBTANAS results from several different years (after 1994/1995) can also be compared.

For the purpose of analysis of the quality of education, schools are classified into 5 categories based on average NEM, as follows:

 Qualification

Code

NEM Range

Quality

Excellent

A

NEM<7.5

5

Good

B

6.5<NEM<7.5

4

Average

C

5.5<NEM<6.5

3

Insufficient

D

4.5<NEM<5.5

2

Poor

E

NEM<4.5

1

 a) A Description of the SLTP NEM of 1994/1995

Some important matters concerning the quality of SLTP based on the above classifications may be specified as in Table 2.1.

Should the C grade with 5.5 <= C <= 6.5 is used as "cutting point" to distinguish passing grades from grades insufficient for passing, the following information is then obtained. First, from the viewpoint of the number of provinces, not any province in Java achieved provincial average grades sufficiently high for passing, while on the other hand two provinces (Maluku and Southeast Sulawesi) outside Java, achieved provincial average grades, sufficient for passing. Furthermore, the provincial average grades in Java were also relatively lower than the average grades outside Java, although with a less significant difference, namely 1.90 and 1.91. Second, viewed from the number of schools, only 15.77% (1,420 out of 9,007) of the schools in Java achieved sufficiently high grades to enable passing, while 29.83% (2,812 schools out of 9,426) outside Java achieve grades sufficiently high for passing.

Schools with students achieving excellent grades (higher than 7,5) were found more in Java than outside Java, while schools with students with poor achievement (lower than 4,5) were also found in Java more than outside Java.

Schools with distribution of students’ grades nearing normal (the number of students with excellent grades were relatively matched by the number with poor grades) and with grades above average were found in Southeast Sulawesi, Maluku, North Sulawesi, DI Yogyakarta and South Sulawesi. Meanwhile, students in four provinces (North Sumatra, DI Aceh, Central Kalimantan and Central Java), although with grades above average, its distribution was abnormal (tending to the left) such as the pattern of grades found in Indonesia in general. On the other hand, students in East Timor and in Lampung achieved grades far below the ‘cutting point,’ while the distribution of their grades was abnormal (tending to the left).

One interesting matter was the grades achieved by students in West Java. In this province, there were 12 schools with students achieving excellent grades (second to DI Yogyakarta with 18 schools, while Southeast Sulawesi had only 2 such schools and Maluku none), but the overall average grades achieved in those provinces were far below ‘cutting point’ while its distribution also tended to the left.

During 1994/1995, viewed from the viewpoint of individual schools, SLTPs of very high quality were found more in Java, as was the case with schools of very poor quality, while schools of average quality were more available outside Java. Viewed from the average grades of students per province no significant differences were found between grades of students in and outside Java. The depiction of SLTP quality may make clear the opinion thus far that schools in Java are of better quality than those outside Java. This notion seems to be based solely on schools of good or excellent quality only (it is true that schools of good and excellent quality are more available in Java) by paying attention to or comparing them with schools of insufficient or poor quality.

Table 2.1

SLTP NEM Qualifications in Indonesia, 1994/95

  

Average NEM at Schools in 1994/95

N. of School

Remarks

Province

A

B

C

D

E

Av.

             
 

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

               

DKI Jakarta

1

25

122

338

605

1,61

1091

A > 7,5          
West Java

12

44

155

569

1467

1,46

2257

6,5 < B <= 7,5          
Central Java

0

33

265

1369

785

1,81

2452

5,5 <= C <= 6,5          
DI Yogyakarta

18

54

141

195

35

2,60

443

4,5 <= D <= 5,5          
East Java

0

49

501

1726

488

2,04

2764

E <= 4,5          

JAVA

31

205

1184

4197

3380

1,90

9007

           
DI Aceh

1

18

149

225

51

2,31

444

           
North Sumatra

9

150

711

577

182

2,52

1629

           
West Sumatra

0

0

23

181

114

1,71

318

           
Riau

0

2

35

137

225

1,53

399

           
Jambi

0

0

18

81

182

1,42

281

           
South Sumatra

0

10

137

337

356

1,76

840

           
Bengkulu

0

3

7

69

111

1,48

190

           
Lampung

0

0

17

124

752

1,18

893

           
Bali

2

10

40

158

144

1,78

354

           
NTB

0

1

37

66

125

1,62

229

           
NTT

0

6

63

216

90

1,96

375

           
East Timor

0

1

0

24

78

1,26

103

           
West Kalimantan

0

0

26

112

277

1,39

415

           
Central Kalimantan

0

3

85

141

42

2,18

271

           
South Kalimantan

0

0

21

91

152

1,50

265

           
East Kalimantan

2

8

26

116

111

1,76

263

           
North Sulawesi

1

76

230

170

15

2,75

492

           
Central Sulawesi

0

0

9

86

107

1,51

202

           
South Sulawesi

0

43

334

219

10

2,67

607

           
SE Sulawesi

2

47

112

30

1

3,10

192

           
Maluku

0

97

222

63

0

3,09

382

           
Irian Jaya

0

0

18

108

157

1,51

283

           

OUTSIDE JAVA

17

475

2320

3331

3282

1,91

9426

           

b) Description of SLTP NEM Quality in 1996/1997

Some significant facts concerning the quality of SLTP in 1996/1997 based on the above classifications may be specified as in Table 2.2.

By using the same ‘cutting point’ and measuring up till two digits after the comma to make a distinction between passing and non-passing grades, the following information is obtained. First, seen from the number of provinces, not any province in Java achieved average provincial passing grades, while only one province outside Java (Southeast Sulawesi) achieved average passing grades. On the other hand, the average grade (2.60) of provinces in Java was slightly higher than the average grade (2.34) outside Java. Second, viewed from the number of schools and by using measurement up to one digit after the comma, not any school in Java had grades sufficient for passing, while on the other hand three provinces outside Java (Southeast Sulawesi, North Sulawesi and DI Aceh) achieved grade sufficient for passing.

Schools with students achieving excellent grades (higher than 7.5) are more available in Java (49 out of 8511) than outside Java (10 out of 9,861), while on the other hand schools with students achieving poor grades (lower than 4.5) were less available in Java (324 out of 8,511) than outside Java (980 out of 9,861).

In 1996/1997 almost no schools were found with grade distribution nearing normal among their students (the number of students with excellent grades was relatively equal to the number of students with poor grades. In general, the distribution of grades in each province followed the national pattern namely tending to the left (in the sense of more schools with insufficient grades).

One interesting fact was the grades achieved by students in West Java. In this province the number of students with excellent grades decreased in comparison to the previous year (from 12 schools becoming 2 schools), while on the other hand although the number of schools categorized excellent in Southeast Sulawesi decreased from 2 to 1, the school average in this province remained in the category excellent at provincial level.

In 1996/1997, from the viewpoint of individual school quality, the majority of excellent schools remained in Java while the majority of poor schools were also found outside Java. From the viewpoint of average grade of students per province there are significant differences in development between students in Java and outside. The picture of student grade quality in SLTP in Java developed slightly faster than that of their colleagues outside Java. During these two periods SLTP students in Southeast Sulawesi still proved supreme in the achievement of highest average grades, while the SLTP students in Java achieved average grades insufficient for passing the ‘cutting point’.


Previous Page Next Page