* : data not available

In general the trend towards increase of the average SLTP NEM was found from 1995/1996 to 1996/1997, but it had decreased during 1996/1997 to 1997/1998.

 Note: the development formula is the NEM Grade in year t minus the NEM Grade in year (t-1) multiplied by 100 and finally divided by the NEM Grade in year (t-1). As the 1997/1998 NEM data for NTT province were not available NTT is excluded from the analysis in this section

Viewed from the condition per province from 1994/1995 to 1996/1997 with some provinces experiencing an increase, others experienced a decrease, having the same experience from 1996/1997 to 1997/1998, with the result that four types of development are identified.

First, provinces experiencing an increase of NEM during the periods mentioned above were: DI Yogyakarta, DI Aceh, Lampung, Central Kalimantan and South Sulawesi. Second, provinces experiencing a decrease during the first period but an increase during the second period were North Sulawesi and Maluku. Third, provinces experiencing an increase of NEM during the first period but a decrease during the second period, there were 12 provinces in all, namely: DKI Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, East Jawa, West Sumatra, Riau, Jambi, South Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, Central Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi and Irian Jaya. Fourth, one province experiencing a decrease of NEM during the two above mentioned periods was North Sumatra.

If the condition of the four types of provinces mentioned above was related to the monetary crisis starting medio 1997, the conclusions that could be drawn are as follows. On the other hand, seven provinces ‘survived’ in the organization of SLTP (from the viewpoint of NEM) during the monetary crisis, two provinces, Sulawesi Utara and Maluku even were able to take advantage of the monetary crisis. On the other hand, 19 other provinces met with difficulties, which probably bore an impact on the organization of SLTP, which was primarily felt by SLTP students in North Sumatra. The finding is sufficiently relevant to the conclusion taken by a study concerning the impact of the monetary crisis, done by the Center of Informatics at the end of 1998, stating that the negative impact of the monetary crisis in education was severely felt at the level of basic education, particularly by SLTP students.

Up to now, in Indonesia the competence for basic study developed for Basic Schools emphasizes the cognitive aspect, in particular: Mathematics, Natural Sciences, Social Science and Language while other aspects are not much touched. Meanwhile, available data is only for SD graduates (for form 4 only standardized tests are provided while the data are not yet available). Thus, indicator 15 of ‘Education for All’ concerning "the percentage of form 4 SD students (or higher) who have mastered the competence of basic study according to national definition’, cannot be fully met as yet. Nevertheless, the indicator for class promotion, the repeater rate and the drop-out rate in form four SD are hopefully could represent indicator 15 of the said EFA, at least from the cognitive aspect.

From Table 2.2., 2.3.and 2.7, the information is obtained that during the last 8 years the rate of Class Promotion Rate (CPR) tended to increase. From 1989/1990 to 1996/1997, at the national level nominal rate of the CPR constantly increased but decreased in 1997/1998, then it increased again in 1998/1999. The increase of the CPR was quite prominent during the monetary crisis (1997/1998). At provincial level, from 1989/1990 until 1999/2000 fluctuation occurred, CPR moving up and down from time to time and from province to province nevertheless, during the monetary crisis decrease of the CPR occurred in almost all provinces excluding Bengkulu. From Table 2.6 it may be detected that the development of form four SD students in Southeast Sulawesi was hit hardest by the negative impact of the monetary crisis, while on the other hand the development of form four SD students in Bengkulu (the sole province) were not hit by the monetary crisis.

From 1989/1990 up till 1996/1997, at the national level the number of students repeating form four tends to consistently decrease, but starting school year 1997/1998 the number of repeater students tended to increase but exactly during the monetary crisis (1997/1998) the number of repeaters proved to decrease again although the year thereafter it increased again. At provincial level, between 1989/1990 and 1999/2000 fluctuation occurred of the CPR, varying from time to time and from province to province, nevertheless during the monetary crisis (1997/1998) in almost all provinces a decrease of repeaters of form four occurred, excluding the number of repeaters in East Timor (although the number of repeaters during the monetary crisis also decreased in this province). It is interesting to see that the number of repeaters decreased during the monetary crisis, where the most significant development occurred in DKI Jakarta, namely around 24%, while the development of repeater decrease in the majority of provinces about 6% (Table 2.6.).

Different from the Form Promotion Rate (which tended to increase) and Repeater Rates (which tended to decrease), at the national level the School Drop-out Rate showed the tendency to fluctuate up and down from 1989/1990 till 1999/2000. This tendency for fluctuation of the School Drop-out Rate also occurred at provincial level, it even occurred in an extreme manner during a certain period in various provinces, such as: in West Java during the monetary crisis increasing 3.93 times and in Aceh between 1996/1997 and 1997/1998.

One of the developments of the drop-out rate of sufficient interest to observe is what happened in Bengkulu province during the last five years. From 1993/1994 to 1994/1995 the drop-out rate decreased from 1,347 drop-out students until about 10% or 135 students dropped out, then increased extremely (over 18 times) in subsequent year. From 1995/1996 to 1996/1997 the drop-out rate decreased again from 74% to 26% or 669 students dropping out, then increasing again almost 5 times into 2,637 students dropping out in subsequent year (see Table 2.7)