Early Childhood Professional Development in Indonesia— Steps Toward a System

1. Early Childhood Professional Development in Indonesia— Steps Toward a System

2. ECPD in Indonesia:Steps Toward a System Background • Indonesia is the 4th most populous country in the world, right after the US. • Recent economic growth has not created equitable benefits. • Indonesian children rank near the bottom on most international comparisons of academic achievement. • High numbers of poor children have stunted growth, limiting both physical and intellectual development • Families in poor communities have few resources to stimulate early development and learning • Few poor children have access to affordable early childhood services

3. Low ECD program enrollment rates for Indonesia’s poorest and youngest

4. The Early Childhood Education and Development Project Goals: The Government of Indonesia and The World Bank created the “ECED Project” to: Increase integrated ECED service delivery through community-driven mechanisms in targeted poor communities; Develop a sustainable system for ECED quality; and Establish effective management, monitoring, and evaluation. Direct Services: Early childhood services (mainly playgroups for children 3-6) have been established in 50 out of 400 districts, targeted by poverty. 6000 early childhood centers in 3,000 villages. Staffed by 12,000 trained village teachers Serving 500,000 children to date

5. Professional Development and the ECED Project • A key aspect of the project. • World Bank supported govt to • Develop standards • Create national leadership team • Train trainers, and • Implement PD in the field

6. The “WHO” • Potential PD participants • Village women selected by communities, secondary school grads or below, highly motivated. • Selected to serve in two different positions (teachers of 3-6 and “child development workers” with 0-3 and families) • PD Providers: • Master trainers and district trainers • Many with little background in early education and development • Challenges and Opportunities: • Difficult to create basic competence among large numbers in in short time frame • Opportunity to create sustainable leadership and commitment at all levels

7. The “WHAT” • PD content developed by national team with consultant • Content organized into 16 modules, total 200 hours in two 100-hour clusters • Content strengths • Broad range of topics relevant to EC staff • Strong emphasis on child development knowledge • Strong module on concepts of DAP (Developmentally Appropriate Practice) • Content gaps • Little or no emphasis on 0-3; focus on center-based programs for 3-6-year-olds • Little content on parenting/family engagement in the ECED program • Over-emphasis on theory and factual knowledge, much less on practices

8. The “HOW” • Cascade training: National trainers  District trainers  Village ECED program personnel • Potential strengths • Methods not well adapted methods to participants’ prior knowledge and roles • Methods began with relatively didactic approach but modified over time • Modules presented by different trainers • Allowed trainer expertise to develop • Made large-scale delivery more practical • May have minimized opportunities to develop close relationships with participants • Initial training seldom followed by coaching or supportive supervision

9. A Story of Mis-Alignment of the Who, What, and How

10. Some Reasons for the Lack of Alignment • National team expertise was strongest on content for center-based programs for ages 3-6. • Ministerial organization—Directorate overseeing this project did not have responsibility for birth-3, family, health, etc. • Training of Trainers not strong on interactive, flexible methods—some trainers had those skills, others not. • Plans for supervision and coaching were limited by budget, expertise, and distance to villages

11. What Difference Did Professional Development Make? We Do Not Know Yet

12. We Know That ECED Services Have Begun to Affect Enrollment and Child Outcomes in Project Villages • The evaluation design randomly assigned villages to receive ECED services • Child outcomes were assessed for sample of children in villages—not necessarily children who were enrolled in services • ECED enrollment increased in “project villages” • Average effects on child outcomes are small so far • BUT project services have had larger effects on child development outcomes for those most at risk: • Children from poorer families • Children who had never been to ECED services before the project services began • Children with parents who had poorer parenting practices

13. Impact of Professional Development on Project Outcomes Is Unknown • Evaluation design did not include any way to assess the impact of the content and delivery of professional development on program quality or child outcomes. • Final project evaluation (endline) will collect program quality data at classroom level

14. Promising Directions for the Future • Government scaling up early childhood services based on positive outcomes from this project • Government has piloted new PD initiatives (internships; mentoring; teacher cluster groups) • Parenting programs are new govt priority • Ministry of Education has new directorate specifically responsible for ECPD • Plans to evaluate all professional development activities • Currently re-examining all existing teacher training materials and methods with focus on strengthening overall quality, including the WHO/WHAT/HOW connections

15. For More Information Early Childhood Education and Development in Poor Villages of Indonesia: Strong Foundations, Later Success AmerHasan, Marilou Hyson, & Mae Chu Chang, Editors. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Ordering information (book available June 26) at: http://publications.worldbank.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=24515

16. Thank You! TerimaKasih!