BASELINE MONITORING REPORT, VOLUME 2: Assessing the … · 2018. 9. 10. · Prioritizing Reform,...

USAID Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, and Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia’s Teachers, Administrators, and Students (USAID PRIORITAS)

BASELINE MONITORING REPORT, VOLUME 2: Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Student Performance in Bahasa Indonesia, Mathematics, and Science Baseline Assessment of a Sample of Students in Primary and Junior Secondary Schools in Project Partner Districts

February 2013 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by RTI International.

Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, and Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia’s Teachers, Administrators, and Students (USAID PRIORITAS) BASELINE MONITORING REPORT, VOLUME 2: Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Student Performance in Bahasa Indonesia, Mathematics, and Science

Baseline Assessment of a Sample of Students in Primary and Junior Secondary Schools in Project Partner Districts

Contract AID-497-C-12-00003 Prepared for USAID/Indonesia Prepared by

RTI International* 3040 Cornwallis Road Post Office Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194

*RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

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

Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Student Performance iii

Table of Contents Page

List of Charts .................................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms ............................................................................................. v

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

The USAID PRIORITAS Program ................................................................................................... 1

Project Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................. 1

An Outline of the Assessment Program ........................................................................................ 2

Part 1 Summary of the Results of the Tests and Recommendations .................................................. 5

1.1 Implementation of the Tests ............................................................................................... 5

1.2 How the Results are Presented ......................................................................................... 5

1.3 Summary of Results in Primary Schools (SD and MI) ................................................... 6

1.4 Summary of Results in Junior Secondary Schools (SMP and MTs) ............................. 7

1.5 Implications and Recommendations for USAID PRIORITAS ...................................... 9

Part 2 First Round Assessment of Students in Primary Schools ........................................................12

2.1 Bahasa Indonesia Grade 4 .................................................................................................12

2.2 Mathematics Test Grade 4 ................................................................................................17

2.3 Science Test Grade 5 .........................................................................................................22

Part 3 First Round Testing of Junior Secondary Schools .....................................................................27

3.1 Bahasa Indonesia Grade 8 .................................................................................................27

3.2 Mathematics Test Grade 8 ................................................................................................32

3.3 Science Test Grade 8 .........................................................................................................36

Annex 1. Average Test Scores by School and District.................................................................41

Annex 2. Comparison between USAID PRIORITAS and Previous Projects on these Tests .......................................................................................................................................51

Annex 3. Criteria for Marking the Grade 4 Writing Test ...........................................................55

Annex 4. Summary of the Tests and their Development ............................................................56

iv Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Student Performance

List of Charts Chart 1. Comparison between Different Groups ................................................................. 14 Chart 2. Average Score by Quartile in Reading Comprehension Test ............................ 14 Chart 3. Comparison between Different Groups ................................................................. 15 Chart 4. Average Score by Quartile in Writing Test ........................................................... 16 Chart 5. Comparison between Different Groups ................................................................. 18 Chart 6. Distribution of Scores by Quartile in Mathematics Test .................................... 19 Chart 7. Analysis of Scores by Question in Mathematics Test .......................................... 21 Chart 8. Comparison between Different Groups ................................................................. 23 Chart 9. Distribution of Scores by Quartile in Science Test .............................................. 23 Chart 10. Analysis of Scores by Question in Primary Science Test .................................... 25 Chart 11. Comparison between Different Groups ................................................................. 29 Chart 12. Average Student Scores by Quartile in Reading Comprehension Test ........... 30 Chart 13. Average Student Scores by Quartile in Writing Test .......................................... 31 Chart 14. Comparison between Different Groups ................................................................. 33 Chart 15. Distribution of Scores by Quartile in Mathematics Test .................................... 33 Chart 16. Analysis of Scores by Question in Mathematics Test .......................................... 35 Chart 17. Distribution of Scores by Quartile in the Science Test ....................................... 37 Chart 18. Comparison between Different Groups ................................................................. 37 Chart 19. Analysis of Scores by Question in Science Test .................................................... 39

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Test Results for All Tests in Primary Schools ...................................6 Table 2. Summary of Test Results for All Tests in Junior Secondary Schools ..................8 Table 3. Details of Schools Tested ........................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Participant Data and Average Scores in Grade 4 Reading and Writing

Tests ................................................................................................................................ 13 Table 5. Scores by Section ......................................................................................................... 15 Table 6. Percentage Scores for Elements of Written Work in Writing Test ................ 16 Table 7. Participant Data and Average Scores in Mathematics Test ................................ 18 Table 8. Most Difficult Questions............................................................................................. 19 Table 9. Participant Data and Average Scores in Science Test .......................................... 22 Table 10. Average Scores by Section in the Science Test ..................................................... 23 Table 11. Most Difficult Questions............................................................................................. 24 Table 12. Data on Schools Tested .............................................................................................. 27 Table 13. Participant Data and Average Scores in Grade 8 Reading and Writing

Tests ................................................................................................................................ 28 Table 14. Scores by Section ......................................................................................................... 30 Table 15. Percentage Scores for Elements of Written Work in Writing Test ................ 31 Table 16. Participant Data and Average Scores in Mathematics Test ................................ 32 Table 17. Most Difficult Questions for Students to Answer ................................................ 34 Table 18. Participant Data and Average Scores in Science Test .......................................... 36 Table 19. Average Scores by Section in the Science Test ..................................................... 38 Table 20. Most Difficult Questions for Students to Answer ................................................ 38

Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Student Performance v

List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms CLCC Creating Learning Communities for Children (UNESCO-UNICEF, 1999–2010) DBE Decentralized Basic Education (project or district) DBE3 Decentralized Basic Education 3 Program (USAID, 2005–2011) EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment EU European Union IT Information Technology JSS Junior Secondary School Kabupaten District or Regency Kota City or Municipality Madrasah Islamic School MBE Managing Basic Education (USAID, 2003–2007) MGP-BE Mainstreaming Good Practices in Basic Education (project) (UNICEF-EC, 2007–2010) MI Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (Primary Islamic School) MIN Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Negeri (the Islamic Elementary School District) MT Madrasah Tsanawiyah (Junior Secondary Islamic School) NZAID New Zealand Agency for International Development PAKEM Pembelajaran yang Aktif, Efektif dan Menyenangkan (Active, Effective and Enjoyable

Learning) PEQIP Primary Education Quality Improvement Program (1992–1998) PRIORITAS USAID Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, and Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia’s Teachers,

Administrators, and Students Project RTI RTI International (trade name for Research Triangle Institute) SD Sekolah Dasar (Primary School) SDN Sekolah Dasar Negeri SMH Sultan Maulana Hasanudin SMP Sekolah Menengah Pertama (Junior Secondary School) TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study TK Taman Kanak-kanak (kindergarten) UHN Universitas HKBP Nomensen UIN Universitas Islam Negeri UKSW Univeritas Kristen Satya Wacana UM Universitas Negeri Malang UMN Universitas Muslim Nusantara UMS Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta UMSU Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara UNESA Universitas Negeri Surabaya UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNICEF-EC United Nations Children’s Fund-European Commission

UNIMED Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia, Universitas Negeri Medan (State University of Medan)

UNIS Universitas Syech Yusuf Unismuh Makassar Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar UNM Universitas Negeri Makassar UNNES Universitas Negeri Semarang UNPAS Universitas Pasundan

vi Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Student Performance

UNS Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret UNTIRTA Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa UNY The State University of Yogyakarta UPI Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government

Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Student Performance 1

Introduction The USAID PRIORITAS Program

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, and Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia’s Teachers, Administrators, and Students Project (PRIORITAS) program has recently started to work with 23 new districts in seven provinces. The table below shows the names of the provinces and districts and the number of schools receiving assistance in each district.

Province District Primary Junior Secondary

Total SD MI SMP MTs Aceh Bener Meriah, Kab. 10 5 5 3 23 Aceh Jaya, Kab. 13 4 5 3 25 Sumatera Utara Labuhan Batu, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Medan, Kota 12 4 7 1 24 Nias Selatan, Kab. 15 1 7 1 24 Banten Serang, Kab 12 4 4 4 24 Pandeglang, Kab 14 4 5 3 26 Jawa Barat Bandung Barat, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Cimahi, Kota 12 4 6 2 24 Ciamis, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Jawa Tengah Batang, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Semarang, Kab. 11 5 6 2 24 Purbalingga, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Banjarnegara, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Sragen, Kab. 15 2 6 1 24 Jawa Timur Mojokerto, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Madiun, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Situbondo, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Pamekasan, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Blitar, Kab. 16 3 6 2 27 Sulawesi Selatan Maros, Kab. 12 4 5 3 24 Bantaeng, Kab. 12 4 6 2 24 Wajo, Kab. 12 4 5 3 24 Grand Total 286 88 133 50 557

Note: SD=Sekolah Dasar (Primary School); MI=Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (Primary Islamic School); SMP=Sekolah Menengah Pertama (Junior Secondary School); MT=Madrasah Tsanawiyah (Junior Secondary Islamic School).

The program activities in the districts will focus on two levels: (i) to improve the management, governance, and funding of education at the district level, and (ii) to improve the quality of education delivered at the school level by improving management, governance, the role of the community, and teaching and learning.

Project Monitoring and Evaluation

The project has undertaken monitoring activities in a sample of schools in the PRIORITAS districts listed above in order to assess their needs at the start of the project and to provide a baseline against which, in subsequent years, to assess the impact of the project. The activities took place in a sample of project partner schools and a parallel sample of non-project schools, which have been called comparison schools in this document and will be

2 Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Student Performance

used as a comparison group against which to compare the impact of project activities on partner schools.

Three activities have been undertaken as follows:

1. Monitoring of School Management, Community Participation, and Teaching and Learning

2. Student Assessments in Bahasa Indonesia, Mathematics and Science (for primary and junior secondary schools)

3. An Early Grades Reading Assessment (EGRA) (for grade 3)

These activities are reported in separate volumes. This volume concerns item 2, the Student Assessments in Bahasa Indonesia, Mathematics, and Science.

This monitoring and evaluation activities will be repeated at approximately the same time of year in subsequent years in the same set of schools to assess the project impact in these schools. Analysis will take place after that monitoring to investigate correlations between changes in school management, community participation, teaching and learning, and student performance. This will assess whether changes in the way schools are managed and teachers teach are reflected in improved student performance.

An Outline of the Assessment Program

The ultimate success of the USAID PRIORITAS program must be assessed in terms of the impact on students through the improved quality of teaching and learning. However, student performance and its assessment are complex, because they encompass knowledge and understanding, skills, and attitudes. The national school examination and half-yearly tests are limited in their nature, mainly to factual recall of knowledge, and in many cases, are not comparable from year to year or between different geographic areas. The program has, therefore, undertaken its own student performance assessment. The assessment was matched to the objectives of the teacher training program and the government’s competency-based curriculum.

The tests, which have been conducted in a total of four partner primary schools and three partner junior secondary schools in each of the 23 districts, are as follows:

Primary Schools (SD and MI) Junior Secondary School (SMP and MTs)

Grade 4: Bahasa Indonesia (Reading and Writing) Grade 4: Mathematics Grade 5: Science

Grade 8: Bahasa Indonesia Grade 8: Mathematics Grade 8: Science

The tests were implemented in a similar number of non-partner primary and junior secondary schools in the same districts, which are not currently planned to be involved in project activities. These schools will act as a comparison group, to compare between schools which have and have not received project interventions.


The tests used in primary schools are based on those developed under the World Bank PEQIP1 and Basic Education Programs, and subsequently also used in the CLCC2, MBE3 and MGP-BE4 programs (see Annex 2). They have been used over a period of 15 years by these and other programs and undergone revisions based on experience in using them. As a result, the tests can be considered valid and reliable. Tests for Bahasa Indonesia and Mathematics for junior secondary schools were developed by the MBE program and used in the DBE35 program. The science test for junior secondary schools was developed under the PRIORITAS project. Personnel from the Curriculum Development Centre and a number of teacher training universities were involved in the development and subsequent revision of the tests.

The tests will be implemented with the current cohort of students in the above classes in the same schools each year and at the same time of the school year in order to ensure comparability. For example, the Bahasa Indonesia and Mathematics tests for primary schools will be conducted annually in the same schools with the current cohort of grade 4 children at the time of testing. This report concerns the first round assessment of students in a sample of schools in USAID PRIORITAS partner districts and is intended to establish a baseline against which to assess progress in subsequent years.

The tests have been designed to measure key aspects of the impact of the USAID PRIORITAS teacher training program, as reflected in the development of student competencies. They measure a range of competencies and use a number of different techniques to measure these, including traditional multiple choice questions, open ended questions and essay questions in the language tests. All the tests are believed to compatible with the current curriculum. More details of each of the tests are shown in a matrix in Annex 4.

The written tests were developed to take not more than an hour each. The Bahasa Indonesia and Mathematics tests in both primary and junior secondary schools were conducted with half of the relevant class, while the Science tests were conducted with a maximum of 25 randomly selected students per class. The first round of assessment took place in November and December 2012.

When these tests have been used in previous projects, they have included word recognition and reading comprehension tests for grade 1. For USAID PRIORITAS these tests have been replaced by a more comprehensive Early Grades Reading Assessment (EGRA), which will be reported separately.

The report of results of the assessment in set out in three separate parts:

1. Summary of the results and recommendations

2. First round assessment of students in primary schools

3. First round assessment of students in junior secondary schools

1 PEQIP=Primary Education Quality Improvement Program (1992–1998) 2 CLCC=Creating Learning Communities for Children (UNESCO-UNICEF, 1999–2010) 3 MBE=Managing Basic Education (USAID, 2003–2007) 4 MGP-BE=Mainstreaming Good Practices in Basic Education (UNICEF-EC, 2007–2010) 5 DBE3=Decentralized Basic Education 3 Program (USAID, 2005–2011)


Some implications and recommendations for the implementation of the USAID PRIORITAS program based on the assessment are included in the report. These have drawn on the extensive experience of the author in working with Indonesian schools and districts as well as reports from those who implemented the testing in the field. It is intended that the report will be discussed with project staff and consultants, trainers and district personnel to make them aware of the results and assess the implications for future USAID PRIORITAS activities.

The total possible number of marks in each test varies (e.g., 20 for grade 1 reading, 28 for grade 4 writing, 24 for grade 4 mathematics). However, in order to avoid confusion, all marks have been converted to percentages.

Copies of the tests have not been included with this report in order to avoid their inadvertent dissemination to schools which would make their further use invalid. It is intended that they will be used again in the repeat testing.


Part 1 Summary of the Results of the Tests and Recommendations

1.1 Implementation of the Tests

The first round of tests were administered between November 15 and December 5, 2012, in primary and junior secondary schools in each of the 23 PRIORITAS partner districts, which joined the USAID PRIORITAS program in 2012. These included four partner primary schools and four non-partner primary schools in each of the districts, a total of 184 schools (92 partner and 92 comparison primary schools). This assessment covered 24.6% of the project partner primary schools. The schools tested included conventional schools (SD) and religious schools (MI). The partner schools were chosen from each of two sub-districts targeted by the program. The non-partner schools were chosen to have a similar profile to the partner schools.

The tests were administered in three partner and three non-partner junior secondary schools in each of the 23 districts, a total of 138 schools (69 partner and 69 comparison junior secondary schools). This is 37.7% of the project partner junior secondary schools. The schools tested included an average of 2 conventional schools (SMP) and 1 religious school (MTs) partner and a similar number of non-partner schools per district. The schools were chosen from each of the sub-districts targeted by the program.

A list of schools and districts tested with the average mark per student in each test is attached in Annex 1.

1.2 How the Results are Presented

The results of these tests are discussed in part 2 of the report (primary schools) and part 3 (junior secondary schools) for each subject separately. The overall average score is given and comparative scores disaggregated for boys and girls. The average scores of higher and lower achieving groups of students are also presented by quartile.

The primary schools scores are also disaggregated between (i) those students who have attended pre-school/kindergarten education (Taman Kanak-kanak [TK]) and those who have not, and (ii) conventional primary schools (SD) and religious primary schools (MI), (iii) state and private schools. A breakdown of the scores on individual questions is presented on the mathematics and science tests and for each section of the science test.

The junior secondary school scores are also disaggregated between (i) conventional junior secondary schools (SMP) and religious junior secondary schools (MTs) and (ii) state and private schools. A breakdown of the scores on individual questions is presented on the mathematics and science tests and for each section of the science test.

Future rounds of testing will track whether any improvements in scores are spread over the different groups, for example: Do SD and MI improve equally? Are low achieving and higher achieving groups improving equally?

It needs to be stressed that only eight primary schools and six junior secondary schools in each district were included in the test. Results of the tests from individual schools are included in Annex 1, but should not be viewed necessarily as being a representative sample


of the districts’ schools. The results of the primary school tests have been aggregated also by district, but the results of the junior secondary school tests have not as the sample for each district was too small. Because of this, comparisons of individual school or district performance are kept to a minimum in the report.

1.3 Summary of Results in Primary Schools (SD and MI)

The schools tested in the 23 districts included 68 partner conventional primary schools (SD) and 24 partner religious primary schools (MI). The comparison group of schools included 69 conventional primary schools (SD) and 23 religious primary schools (MI). A total of approximately 1,400 students were involved in each test for each of the partner and comparison schools. Table 1 gives a summary of the results of each test.

Table 1. Summary of Test Results for All Tests in Primary Schools

Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 5 Reading Comp Test Writing Test Mathematics Test Science Test

P C P C P C P C N Student Tested 1442 1414 1442 1414 1429 1387 1423 1437

% Attended Pre-School (TK) 78.8% 78.9% 78.8% 78.9% 77.5% 78.9% 78.0% 75.6%

Gender Boys 41.1% 38.6% 37.6% 36.6% 40.6% 38.5% 35.1% 32.2%

Girls 44.7% 43.7% 45.6% 42.5% 40.7% 41.4% 36.0% 33.7%

Pre School (TK) Attend 45.6% 43.2% 44.2% 41.7% 42.9% 42.7% 37.4% 35.5%

Not Attend 33.3% 33.3% 32.7% 31.5% 32.9% 29.9% 29.0% 24.9%

School Type Secular 44.5% 41.6% 43.3% 41.0% 43.7% 40.9% 37.7% 34.0%

Religious 38.3% 39.6% 37.1% 34.5% 31.3% 37.0% 29.0% 29.6%

School Status Public 44.3% 40.6% 42.5% 40.0% 42.4% 39.7% 36.4% 33.5%

Private 35.9% 43.3% 38.4% 37.8% 31.7% 41.0% 31.7% 30.7%

Average 43.0% 41.1% 41.8% 39.5% 40.7% 40.0% 35.6% 32.9%

Average Total 42.1% 40.7% 40.3% 34.2%

P=Prioritas Partner School, C=Comparison School

Grade 4 Bahasa Indonesia Test: In the grade 4 Bahasa Indonesia test the average score of all schools tested was 42.1% for reading and 40.7% for writing. Scores in partner schools were slightly higher than those of the comparison schools. It is evident that many grade 4 children in USAID PRIORITAS schools have difficulty in comprehending meaning in what they read and in communicating ideas in a coherent and legible manner. 13% of children in partner schools and 15% of children in comparison schools wrote nothing.

Grade 4 Mathematics Test: In the grade 4 Mathematics test the overall average score was 40.3%. Scores in partner schools were very slightly higher than those of the comparison schools. Areas in which students had particular difficulties included recognizing the value of both decimal and simple fractions and operations with decimal fractions. Students also scored very low on questions which required problem solving and creativity in their answers.


Grade 5 Science Test: In the grade 5 science test the overall average score on the test was 34.2%. Scores in partner schools were higher than those in comparison schools (32.9%). Children found the traditional format of questioning (with multiple choice answers) in Section A easier than in Section B, which required them to make deductions and apply concepts which they have learned.

Comparisons Between Different Groups: On all tests girls scored higher than boys, considerably so in all tests except mathematics. Scores of children who attended TK (pre-school) were substantially higher than those who had not. From observations at school level it appears that many children who have attended TK enter primary school already having mastered some of the basics of literacy and numeracy, which gives them a significant advantage over the length of their school career. Average scores at SD were considerably higher than at MI in all tests. State schools scored better on all the tests with one exception. Private schools from the comparison group of schools scored higher than state schools on the mathematics test.

Differences Between Schools and Districts: The schools chosen to take part in the USAID PRIORITAS and then chosen from among these schools to take part in the student assessment were not intended as a representative sample of the schools in each district. However, the average school and district scores for primary schools and the average school scores for junior secondary schools have been included in Annex 1. There were large differences in scores between schools. For example, on the reading test the highest average score was 90% and the lowest 35.33%, in mathematics the highest score was 82.25% and the lowest 12%. While some differences can be explained by different student intakes, the largest reason for the differences must lie with the quality of teaching.

A table comparing the results from the USAID PRIORITAS, MGMP-BE, and MBE programs is presented in Annex 2.

1.4 Summary of Results in Junior Secondary Schools (SMP and MTs)

The student assessments took place between November 15 and December 5, 2012, in 69 partner schools (50 SMP and 19 MTs) and 69 comparison schools (45 SMP and 24 MTs) in the 23 PRIORITAS partner districts. That was 3 partner and 3 comparison schools in each district. Over 1,100 were tested overall in each group for each subject. Table 2 (on next page) gives a summary of the results of each test. The results for each school can be found in Annex 1.


Table 2. Summary of Test Results for All Tests in Junior Secondary Schools

Grade 8 Grade 8 Grade 8 Grade 8

Reading Comp Test Writing Test Mathematics Test Science Test P C P C P C P C

N Student Tested 1191 1147 1191 1147 1175 1121 1153 1134

Gender Boys 61.3% 63.8% 44.7% 42.5% 33.0% 31.5% 38.8% 39.0%

Girls 66.4% 67.5% 54.6% 50.7% 34.7% 33.6% 38.1% 37.9%

School Type Secular 65.1% 67.0% 51.2% 45.9% 36.0% 33.8% 39.4% 39.7%

Religious 61.9% 62.4% 47.7% 49.6% 29.7% 29.5% 36.6% 34.9%

School Status Public 64.6% 66.8% 51.8% 47.3% 34.9% 33.7% 38.4% 38.8%

Private 61.1% 60.8% 40.9% 45.0% 28.6% 27.3% 38.6% 36.3%

Average 64.0% 65.8% 50.1% 46.9% 33.9% 32.6% 38.4% 38.4%

Average Total 64.9% 48.5% 33.3% 38.4%

P=Prioritas Partner School, C=Comparison School

Bahasa Indonesia Test: The average scores in Bahasa Indonesia Reading and Writing tests were 64.9% and 48.5%, respectively. Comparison schools scored on average slightly higher than partner schools on the reading comprehension test, while partner schools scored higher on the writing test. More than 75% of students scored over 60% on the reading test and even the bottom quartile of students scored an average of 54%. The results of the writing test were lower, and the difference between the quartiles was much more marked. While the top quartile scored on average over 70%, the bottom quartile scored less than 25% on average. Approximately 20% of students scored poorly or very poorly in the writing test in terms of the ability to write in paragraphs and sentences, the quality of ideas, spelling and punctuation and handwriting.

Mathematics Test: The scores on the mathematics test were relatively low (on average only 33.3% of the possible score), which reflects the difficulty students had answering the questions with the emphasis on understanding and the ability to apply concepts. Partner schools scored on average slightly higher than comparison schools. Students found considerable difficulty with questions which involved problem solving and had to be worked in two or more stages (i.e. solving one part of the problem first and then using the answer from that part of the problem to solve the whole problem).

Science Test: The average overall score in the test was 38.4%, with partner and comparison schools scoring almost the same. Students were relatively weak in all areas, but especially where they had to reason or make deductions from data. They also seem not to have acquired measuring skills through practical work. For example, they had difficulty in reading measurements of a ruler and reading weighing scales and measuring cylinders. They also had a weak knowledge of technical terms and difficulty in applying concepts to everyday situations.


Comparisons Between Different Groups: Girls performed considerably better than boys in the Bahasa Indonesia reading and writing tests and slightly better in the mathematics test whereas boys performed slightly better in the science test. SMP students performed better than MTs students on most of the tests. Students from state schools also performed better than those in private schools on almost all of the tests.

Differences Between Schools: There were wide differences in average scores between schools in every subject, indicating that students are learning much better in some schools than in others. In some cases there will be mitigating social and economic circumstances. However, it is noticeable that many schools rate relatively well in one subject and poorly or very poorly in another (see Annex 1 for a complete list of school scores). This indicates variable quality in the teaching within the same school.

1.5 Implications and Recommendations for USAID PRIORITAS

A. General

• The better scores achieved by children who have attended kindergarten (TK) suggest that district should prioritize the provision of pre-school education, but also make sure that teachers are well trained to help children make the best of their opportunity.

• Based on general experience in Indonesian schools, improvements both in the areas of teachers’ subject knowledge and the approaches and methodology of teaching are needed to improve student performance. However, the USAID PRIORITAS program should build on lessons learned from previous programs concerning the need to link improved teaching to other system improvements at school and district level, including improving school management, increasing community support for schools and improved support and management from district governments.

• Government policy stresses the use of Active, Joyful, Creative, and Effective Learning (better known by its Indonesian acronym—PAKEM) as its preferred teaching approach. However, teacher training under USAID PRIORITAS needs to identify specific weaknesses in the teaching of the various subjects and help teachers develop strategies and methodologies to address these weaknesses. Some more specific suggestions are set out below. Training should pay attention to the special needs of specific districts and schools.

B. Bahasa Indonesia

• A problem which was reported from a number of primary schools was a lack of mastery of Bahasa Indonesia, with schools which appear to have similar backgrounds showing different levels of success in helping their students master the language. Previous experience has shown that this is often dependent on the will and commitment of teachers and that local government and especially school supervisors and principals can do much to promote the use of Bahasa Indonesia in their schools.

• It is evident that many grade 4 children in USAID PRIORITAS schools have difficulty in comprehending meaning in what they read and in communicating ideas in a coherent and legible manner. Mastery of language is the key to success across the curriculum and, in many cases, in later life. This highlights the importance of training in the teaching of Bahasa Indonesia. From observations in many schools around the country language


teaching focuses too narrowly on the mechanics of reading (often barking at print) and writing is confined largely to copying words and sentences or filling in words in sentences from the text book or the teacher.

• In line with the competency based curriculum, Bahasa Indonesia training should focus on developing students’ language skills. Teachers should be trained to give their students opportunities to write for a variety of purposes including reporting facts and events, writing instructions and expressing their feelings and opinions. Children also need to be given the opportunity and to be taught to read for different purposes including for enjoyment and finding information and to reflect on and report back on what they have read.

• Teachers need to give their students the opportunity to develop their speaking and listening skills by giving them the opportunity to discuss a variety of issues and problems. Speaking and listening can and should often be linked to reading and writing activities, with students being invited to discuss and comment on what they read and to discuss ideas before they begin to write. They should also be given the opportunity to read and give feedback on each other’s work.

• Teaching should pay attention to handwriting, spelling and punctuation, which need to be taught regularly and systematically and appear to have been neglected in many schools. While punctuation and spelling should be introduced through special lessons, they need to be reinforced through the children’s own writing. Children need to be encouraged to get into the habit of re-reading their own writing and correcting spelling, punctuation and other errors.

C. Mathematics

• Experience in Indonesia has shown that mathematics is generally poorly taught. Many teachers have a poor understanding of the concepts they are teaching and tend to teach rules and procedures for doing mathematical operations rather than cultivating an understanding of the concepts. As a result students have difficulty applying the concepts and using mathematics as a tool for solving problems.

• Training for teachers should focus on helping both teachers and students to gain an understanding of mathematical concepts, especially by relating them to real situations in areas such as number, measurement, geometry and graphical representation.

• Teachers should be encouraged to adopt “problem solving” approaches to teaching mathematics, which also encourage creativity and develop understanding. This can include children being asked to think of a variety of answers to open ended problems, being asked to make up their own questions for other children to answer and being asked to make up a variety of questions which will result in the same answer (e.g., How many questions can you make with the answer “20”? How many different shapes can you make with an area of 24cm2?).


D. Science

• Science teaching focuses too much on the memorization of rules and concepts and too little on developing understanding of and applying concepts. Too little practical work takes place to support science teaching. Students spend much of their time memorizing information from books rather than developing scientific skills such as measuring, observing real phenomena, data analysis, making hypotheses and drawing conclusions.

• Teacher training should focus on developing students’ scientific skills based on the observation of the real environment and doing experiments to investigate natural phenomena. Training should include helping students to make systematic reports on the experimental and observational work they undertake. Simple technology activities should be promoted to encourage students to apply scientific concepts in real situations.


Part 2 First Round Assessment of Students in Primary Schools

The students’ assessment took place between November 15 and December 5, 2012, in 92 USAID PRIORITAS and 92 comparison schools. Details of the schools are set out on Table 3.

Table 3. Details of Schools Tested

Row Labels

SD MI Total Public Private Public Private

P C P C P C P C P C Aceh 4 5 4 3 8 8

North Sumatera 9 10 3 2 12 12

Banten 5 6 1 2 2 8 8

West Java 9 8 1 3 3 12 12

Central Java 15 15 1 1 4 4 20 20

East Java 15 15 1 4 5 20 20

South Sulawesi 9 9 1 1 2 2 12 12

Grand Total 66 68 2 1 9 5 15 18 92 92

P=Prioritas school, C=Comparison School

The results are reported below by subject, together with the implications and recommendations for USAID PRIORITAS.

2.1 Bahasa Indonesia Grade 4

2.1.1 Introduction

Traditional Bahasa Indonesia tests assess knowledge of the Indonesian language rather than children's functional language skills although the new curriculum emphasizes the development of all four language skills. This particular test focused on skills and was divided into two parts. The first part, reading comprehension, tests children's ability to read an extended piece of writing with understanding. The second part, story writing, tests children's ability to extract ideas from a picture and, using their imagination, to produce a story based on that picture. The final score for writing was a composite of five scores for the different skills of handwriting, spelling, punctuation, length of the written piece and the quality of language used. A matrix showing how the scores for the writing test were compiled in included as Annex 3.

2.1.2 The Results

Table 4 (on next page) shows the average scores obtained in the two tests.


Table 4. Participant Data and Average Scores in Grade 4 Reading and Writing Tests

PRIORITAS School Comparison School Student Tested Grade 4 Student Tested Grade 4

N % Reading Writing N % Reading Writing Gender Boys 684 47.4% 41.1% 37.6% 712 50.4% 38.6% 36.6% Girls 758 52.6% 44.7% 45.6% 702 49.6% 43.7% 42.5% Pre School (TK) Attended 1137 78.8% 45.6% 44.2% 1116 78.9% 43.2% 41.7% Did Not Attend 305 21.2% 33.3% 32.7% 298 21.1% 33.3% 31.5% School Type Secular 1095 75.9% 44.5% 43.3% 1087 76.9% 41.6% 41.0% Religious 347 24.1% 38.3% 37.1% 327 23.1% 39.6% 34.5% School Status Public 1210 83.9% 44.3% 42.5% 1134 80.2% 40.6% 40.0% Private 232 16.1% 35.9% 38.4% 280 19.8% 43.3% 37.8% Average 1442 100.0% 43.0% 41.8% 1414 100.0% 41.1% 39.5%

The average score was 43% for reading and 41.8% for writing in USAID PRIORITAS partner schools and 41.1% for reading and 39.5% for writing in comparison schools.

There were large differences between individual schools with the highest having an average student score of 78.4 and the lowest 11.4% on the reading test and the highest 86.2% on the writing test compared to 1.58% for the lowest. Four schools had average scores below 10% on the writing test.

2.1.3 Reading

The results disaggregated by various grouping are shown in Chart 1 (next page). Girls scored considerably higher than boys in the reading test and children who had attended TK (pre-school) scored substantially higher than those who had not. Students in SD (secular primary schools) scored higher than those in MI (religious primary schools). Students in private schools scored higher than state schools among the partner schools, but lower among the comparison schools. Just 3% of students failed to score on the test, while only 3.8% of students scored over 80%.


Chart 1. Comparison between Different Groups

Chart 2 shows the average score per quartile. The top 25% of students in partner schools scored, on average, 70%, and comparison schools scored 69%; whereas the lowest 25% of students in partner schools scored, on average, 16%, and comparison schools scored 13%. These scores will be monitored to see whether improvement is spread evenly over all abilities (i.e., Does each quartile show improvement or, for example, just the highest or lowest quartiles?).

The test was divided into three sections. Section A gave multiple choices of words to complete sentences about a reading passage. Section B required the students to evaluate whether statements about the passage were true or false, while Section C required students to deduce information from or attempt to explain what they had read. As can be seen from Table 5 below, the students found Section C most difficult with an average of 25% of questions answered correctly compared to around 60% for the other sections.

43%41%

45% 46%

33%

45%

38%

44%

36%

42%

38%

46%44%

33%

43%

37%

43%

38%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Overall Boys Girls Yes No Secular Religious Public Private

Gender Attend TK School Type School Status

Grade 4 - Bahasa Indonesia - Reading Comprehension

PRIORITAS Comparison

Chart 2. Average Score by Quartile in Reading Comprehension Test

70%

50%

36%

16%

69%

48%

34%

13%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Top 25% Second 25% Third 25% Lowest 25%

PRIORITAS School

Comparison School


Table 5. Scores by Section

Section % Correct

P C T Section A 58% 58% 58%

Section B 64% 62% 63%

Section C 26% 24% 25%

Total 52% 51% 51%

2.1.4 Writing

The results disaggregated by various grouping are shown in Chart 3. In the writing test girls achieved considerably higher scores than boys. Children who had attended kindergarten scored much higher than those who had not (44% to 33% in partner schools). SD achieved higher scores than MI. Private schools also outscored state schools.


The writing test was assessed according to five elements: handwriting, spelling, punctuation, length, and the quality of the writing. The weighting in the overall score was for handwriting (15%), spelling (15%), punctuation (15%), length (20%), and quality of the writing (35%).

The results are summarized in Table 6 below. Scores did not differ greatly between partner and comparison schools. The scores quoted below are from partner schools.

• In partner schools only 15% of children could write neat, cursive writing, while another 46% wrote neatly but without joining their writing. 27% of the children’s writing was classified as poor and 13% of children did not score, as they wrote nothing.

• Only 6% of children wrote without spelling mistakes, while in 36% more cases the spelling was good (largely correct). In 43% of cases the children’s spelling was considered

42%

38%

46%44%

33%

43%

37%

42%

38%40%37%

42% 42%

31%

41%

34%

40%38%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%



Grade 4 - Bahasa Indonesia - Writing Test



poor while 16% obtained no score, which implies that their writing was not comprehensible.

• Only 30% of children punctuated their work well (classified as perfect or good), while in 44% of cases children’s punctuation was classified as poor. 26% of children did not use punctuation.

• 25% of children wrote more than half a page, while 30% wrote less than two sentences (including 13% who wrote nothing).

• In 14% of cases the quality of the content of the children’s writing was classified as very good or good, i.e. their ideas were clear and well expressed and in logical order. 43% of children’s writing was ranked as poor in quality, while 13% wrote nothing. In general, children were weak in organizing their thoughts in a systematic way.

Table 6. Percentage Scores for Elements of Written Work in Writing Test

Handwriting Good Joined Good Printed Poor No Score PRIORITAS 15% 46% 26% 13%

Comparison 13% 45% 27% 15%

Spelling Perfect Good Poor No Score PRIORITAS 6% 36% 43% 16%

Comparison 8% 29% 47% 17%

Punctuation Perfect Good Poor No Score PRIORITAS 4% 26% 44% 26%

Comparison 7% 20% 44% 29%

Length > 1 Page Half Page >2 Sentences <2 Sentences No Writing PRIORITAS 4% 21% 45% 17% 13%

Comparison 4% 20% 43% 19% 15%

Quality Very Good Good Fair Poor No Writing PRIORITAS 2% 12% 29% 43% 13%

Comparison 0% 11% 28% 46% 15%

Chart 4 shows the average score per quartile. The top 25% of students in partner schools scored, on average, 70%, and comparison schools scored 67%; whereas the lowest 25% of students in partner schools scored, on average, 12%, and comparison schools scored 11%. These scores will be monitored to see whether any improvement, especially in partner schools, is spread evenly over all abilities.

Chart 4. Average Score by Quartile in Writing Test

70%

50%

35%

12%

67%

47%

33%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


PRIORITAS SchoolComparison School


2.1.5 Implications and Recommendations for USAID PRIORITAS

• It is evident that many grade 4 children in the schools tested have difficulty in comprehending meaning in what they read and in communicating ideas in a coherent and legible manner. Mastery of language is the key to success across the curriculum and, in many cases, in later life. This highlights the importance of training in the teaching of Bahasa Indonesia. From observations in many schools around the country language teaching focuses too narrowly on the mechanics of reading (often barking at print) and writing is confined largely to copying words and sentences.

• The emphasis in future teacher training should be on improving students’ communication skills, including the ability to get meaning from what they hear and read and to communicate their own ideas better in both spoken and written form. The ability to communicate for different purposes to different audiences should be taught by the introduction of appropriate text types, as outlined in Curriculum 2013. Reading should be embedded in a more complete literacy program that develops these skills. One activity that should be encouraged is children reading their peers’ work and giving feedback. The benefits are two-way, because the reader gains new skills and insights and the writer is given new ideas and feedback.

• Language teaching should pay attention to handwriting, spelling and punctuation, which need to be taught regularly and systematically and appear to have been neglected in many schools. While punctuation and spelling should be introduced through special lessons, they need to be reinforced through the children’s own writing. Children need to be encouraged to get into the habit of re-reading their own writing and correct spelling, punctuation and other errors.

2.2 Mathematics Test Grade 4

2.2.1 Introduction

The mathematics test was revised substantially in 2004 compared to the test used in PEQIP and the World Basic Education Projects in order to give a greater emphasis on testing children’s understanding and their problem solving capabilities.

2.2.2 The Results

Table 7 below shows that the overall average score on the test was 40.7% for partner schools and 40% for comparison schools. Boys scored slightly lower than girls on the test. As in the other tests children who attended kindergarten (TK) scored substantially higher than those who had not. Students attending SD also scored considerably higher than those attending MI. State schools scored considerably higher than private schools in partner districts and slightly lower in comparison districts. There were large differences between individual schools with the highest having an average student score of 73.1% and the lowest 8.3%. Three schools had average scores below 10%.


Table 7. Participant Data and Average Scores in Mathematics Test

PRIORITAS School Comparison School Student Tested Average Student Tested Average N % Score N % Score

Gender Boys 725 50.7% 40.6% 685 49.4% 38.5%

Girls 704 49.3% 40.7% 702 50.6% 41.4%

Pre School (TK) Attended 1107 77.5% 42.9% 1094 78.9% 42.7%

Did Not Attend 322 22.5% 32.9% 293 21.1% 29.9%

School Type Secular 1083 75.8% 43.7% 1062 76.6% 40.9%

Religious 346 24.2% 31.3% 325 23.4% 37.0%

School Status Public 1197 83.8% 42.4% 1111 80.1% 39.7%

Private 232 16.2% 31.7% 276 19.9% 41.0%

Average 1429 100.0% 40.7% 1387 100.0% 40.0%

The results disaggregated by the various groupings are shown in Chart 5.


41% 41% 41%43%

33%

44%

31%

42%

32%

40% 39%41% 43%

30%

41%

37%40% 41%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%



Grade 4 - Mathematics



Chart 6 shows the average score per quartile. The top 25% of students in both partner and comparison schools scored, on average, 64%; whereas the lowest 25% of students in partner schools scored, on average, 16%, and in comparison schools scored 15%. These scores will be monitored to see whether any improvement, especially in partner schools, is spread evenly over all abilities (i.e. Does each quartile show improvement or, for example, just the highest or lowest quartiles?).

The questions that the children found most difficult to answer are shown in Table 8. Results from questions 2, 12, and 19 show that students had difficulties in recognizing the value of both decimal and simple fractions, as well as had difficulties with operations with decimal fractions. Students scored very low on questions that required problem solving creativity in working out their answers (questions 13, 17, 18, and 20).

Table 8. Most Difficult Questions

Question No. % Correct

Description of Question P C All 12 8% 4% 6% Ordering decimal fractions

20 12% 11% 11% Money problem

2 12% 13% 12% Addition of decimals

17 12% 17% 14% Configuring shapes

13 19% 18% 18% Completing a number series

18 18% 18% 18% Number series problem

19 19% 18% 19% Recognizing simple fractions (½. ¼ etc.)

15 28% 30% 29% Counting the area of shapes

Chart 7 below shows the percentage of children scoring correct in each of the 20 questions in the test.


• Experience in Indonesia has shown that mathematics is poorly taught in many classes. Many teachers have a poor understanding of the concepts they are teaching and tend to teach rules and procedures for doing mathematical operations rather than cultivating an understanding of the concepts. As a result students have difficulty applying the concepts in real life and using mathematics as a tool for solving problems.

Chart 6. Distribution of Scores by Quartile in Mathematics Test

64%

48%

35%

16%

64%

47%

34%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


PRIORITASSchool


• Training for teachers should focus on the development of students' conceptual thinking and the systematic teaching of number concepts from the physical to the verbal to the symbolic. It should focus on helping both teachers and students to gain an understanding of mathematical concepts by relating them to real situations in areas such as number, money, measurement, geometry and graphical representation.

• Teachers should be encouraged to adopt “problem solving” approaches to teaching mathematics, which also encourage creativity and develop understanding. This can include children being asked to think of a variety of answers to an more open ended problem, being asked to make up their own questions for other children to answer and being asked to make up a variety of questions that will result in the same answer (e.g., How many questions can you make with the answer “20”? How many different shapes can you make with an area of 24cm2?).


Chart 7. Analysis of Scores by Question in Mathematics Test

12%

19%

18%

12%

53%

28%

66%

19%

8%

65%

29%

77%

78%

60%

32%

54%

44%

54%

12%

78%

11%

18%

18%

17%

53%

30%

66%

18%

4%

58%

30%

76%

75%

55%

28%

51%

44%

54%

13%

75%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

20. Money problem19. Recognising simple fractions (½. ¼ etc.)

18. Number series problem17. Configuring shapes

16. Estimating length15. Counting the area of shapes

14. Making number sentences13. Completing a number series

12. Ordering decimal fractions11. Ordering whole numbers

10. Inserting missing number in a division sum9. Inserting missing number in an addition sum

8. Inserting number operators7. Inserting number operators

6. Simple division5. Multiplication, tens and units

4. Subtraction, hundreds, tens, unit with carrying3. Subtraction, tens and units

2. Addition of decimals1. Addition, tens and units

Comparison

PRIORITAS


2.3 Science Test Grade 5

2.3.1 Introduction

This test was divided into two sections. Section A used the familiar format of multiple-choice questioning to assess students’ understanding of concepts they have already learnt. Section B assessed their process skills such as the ability to observe, interpret and hypothesize (i.e. providing tentative answers based on previous knowledge and experience). Some of the test items also assessed the ability to apply basic science concepts to everyday situations.

2.3.2 The Results

Table 9 shows that the overall average score on the test was 35.6% for partner schools and 32.9% for comparison schools. Boys scored slightly lower than girls on the test. As in the other tests, children who attended kindergarten (TK) scored substantially higher than those who had not. Students attending SD also scored considerably higher than those attending MI. Private schools scored marginally higher among partner schools, but state schools scored higher among the comparison schools.

Table 9. Participant Data and Average Scores in Science Test


Gender Boys 705 49.5% 35.1% 714 49.7% 32.2%

Girls 718 50.5% 36.0% 723 50.3% 33.7%

Pre School (TK) Attend 1110 78.0% 37.4% 1086 75.6% 35.5%

Not Attend 313 22.0% 29.0% 351 24.4% 24.9%


Religious 348 24.5% 29.0% 352 24.5% 29.6%


Private 244 17.1% 31.7% 288 20.0% 30.7%

Average 1423 100.0% 35.6% 1437 100.0% 32.9%

The results disaggregated by the various groupings are shown in Chart 8 (next page).



There were large differences between individual schools with the highest having an average student score of 64.2% and the lowest 6.7%. Three schools had average scores below 10%.

Chart 9 shows the average score per quartile. The top 25% of students in partner schools averaged 58%, while comparison schools scored on average 54%. The lowest 25% scored, on average, 14% for partner schools and 12% for comparison schools.

As can be seen from Table 10 below, children found the traditional format of questioning (with multiple choice answers) in Section A much easier than Section B. In Section A, they answered an average of 44% (partner schools) and 45% (comparison schools) correctly. In Section B, where they correctly answered an average of 32% and 28%, respectively, they were required to make deductions and apply concepts that they had learned.

Table 10. Average Scores by Section in the Science Test

PRIORITAS Comparison Section A 44% 45%

Section B 32% 28%

Total 38% 37%

Chart 10 further below shows the percentage of correct answers to individual questions.

36% 35% 36% 37%

29%

38%

29%

36%32%33% 32% 34% 36%

25%

34%30%

33%31%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Overall Yes No Boys Girls Secular Religious Public Private

Attend TK Gender School Type School Status

Grade 5 - Science


Chart 9. Distribution of Scores by Quartile in Science Test

58%

41%

29%

14%

54%

38%

27%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%




Table 11 shows the questions for which scores were the lowest. The questions with which students had the most difficulty were those where they had to interpret data and where they had to give open-ended answers, i.e., there were no multiple choice answers from which to select. This result suggests that students are more confident in selecting right answers when they are given a choice, but they lack the confidence or skills to construct an answer for themselves.

Table 11. Most Difficult Questions

Question No.

% Correct Description of Question P C T

[B10] 16% 14% 15% Drawing conclusions from data in line graph

[B7] 14% 21% 18% Deduction from data on water dripping from cloth

[A2] 22% 27% 24% Understanding levers [B4] 21% 27% 24% Open ended food chain question

[B9] 29% 22% 25% Open ended question on effects of heat on iron

[A3] 26% 32% 29% Which variables change kite’s performance


Chart 10. Analysis of Scores by Question in Primary Science Test

16%

29%

35%

14%

36%

50%

21%

38%

39%

38%

64%

45%

29%

64%

60%

41%

35%

26%

22%

51%

14%

22%

30%

21%

40%

37%

27%

32%

30%

33%

55%

50%

40%

60%

52%

42%

37%

32%

27%

54%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

B10. Drawing conclusions from data in line graph

B9. Effects of heating materials

B8. Heat transfer in everyday objects

B7. Deduction from data on water dripping from cloth

B6. Ordering the activities of a bee

B5. Reading data on a column graph

B4. Open ended food chain question

B3. Causes of evaporation of water in plants

B2.Variables which change time to boil water

B1. Observing movement by wind energy

A10. Electrical and wind energy in everyday objects

A9. Environmental conservation

A8. Effect of buoyancy on weight

A7. Differences between animal and plants

A6. Food chain

A5. Estimating rates of evaporation

A4. Formation of dew

A3. Which variables change kite's performance

A2. Understanding levers

A1. Predicting water flow

Comparison

PRIORITAS



• Science teaching focuses too much on the memorization of rules and concepts and too little on developing understanding of and applying concepts. Too little practical work takes place to support student learning. Students spend much of their time memorizing information from books rather than developing scientific skills such as observation of real phenomena, data analysis, making hypotheses and drawing conclusions.

• Teacher training should focus on developing students’ scientific skills based on the observation of the real environment and doing experiments to investigate natural phenomena. Training should include helping students to make systematic reports and draw their own conclusions on the experimental and observational work they undertake. Simple technology activities should be promoted to encourage students to apply scientific concepts in real situations.


Part 3 First Round Testing of Junior Secondary Schools

The student assessment took place between November 15 and December 5, 2012, in 69 partner schools (50 SMP and 19 MTs) and 69 comparison schools (45 SMP and 24 MTs) in the 23 PRIORITAS partner districts. That was 3 partner and 3 comparison schools in each district. Data on the schools tested in set out in Table 12.

Table 12. Data on Schools Tested

Row Labels

SMP MTs Total Public Private Public Private

P C P C P C P C P C Aceh 4 4 2 2 6 6

North Sumatera 7 5 1 2 2 1 9 9

Banten 4 4 2 2 6 6

West Java 6 6 2 2 1 1 9 9

Central Java 9 9 1 1 3 4 3 15 15

East Java 10 10 2 3 3 2 15 15

South Sulawesi 9 6 1 2 9 9

Grand Total 49 44 1 1 7 13 12 11 69 69

Note: P=PRIORITAS school, C=Comparison School

The results are reported below by subject, together with the implications and recommendations for USAID PRIORITAS.

3.1 Bahasa Indonesia Grade 8

3.1.1 Introduction

Traditional Bahasa Indonesia tests assess knowledge of the Indonesian language rather than children's functional language skills, although the new curriculum emphasizes the development of all four language skills. This particular test focused on skills and was divided into two parts. The first part—reading comprehension—tests children's ability to read an extended piece of writing with understanding, including their ability to deduce meaning from a text. The second part—the writing test—assesses children's ability to extract ideas from a picture and, using their imagination, to produce a logical and well-ordered piece of writing based on the picture. The final score for writing consists of a composite of five scores for the different components of (i) paragraphing and (ii) sentencing, (iii) the quality of the ideas expressed, (iv) spelling and punctuation, and (v) handwriting.

3.1.2 The Results

Table 13 (next page) shows the average scores obtained in the two tests. The average score was 64% for reading and 50.1% for writing in USAID PRIORITAS partner schools and 65.8% for reading and 46.9% for writing in comparison schools. Girls scored somewhat higher than boys in reading and considerably so in writing. SMP students scored higher than


MTs students on both tests. Students from state schools scored higher than those in private schools on both tests.

There were large differences between individual schools with the highest having an average student score of 90% and the lowest 35.3% on the reading test and the highest 74% on the writing test compared to 19.1% for the lowest.

Table 13. Participant Data and Average Scores in Grade 8 Reading and Writing Tests

PRIORITAS School Comparison School Student Tested Grade 8

Student Tested Grade 8

N % Reading Writing N % Reading Writing

Gender Boys 548 46.0% 61.3% 44.7% 532 46.4% 63.8% 42.5%

Girls 643 54.0% 66.4% 54.6% 615 53.6% 67.5% 50.7%

School Type Secular 796 66.8% 65.1% 51.2% 847 73.8% 67.0% 45.9%

Religious 395 33.2% 61.9% 47.7% 300 26.2% 62.4% 49.6%

School Status Public 1003 84.2% 64.6% 51.8% 955 83.3% 66.8% 47.3%

Private 188 15.8% 61.1% 40.9% 192 16.7% 60.8% 45.0%

Average 1191 100.0% 64.0% 50.1% 1147 100.0% 65.8% 46.9%

The results disaggregated by the various groupings are shown in Chart 11 below.



64% 61%66% 65%

62% 65%61%

66% 64%67% 67%

62%67%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Overall Boys Girls Secular Religious Public Private

Gender School Type School Status

Grade 8 - Bahasa Indonesia - Reading Comprehension


50%45%

55%51%

48%52%

41%47%

42%

51%46%

50% 47% 45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



Grade 8 - Bahasa Indonesia - Writing Test



3.1.3 Reading

Chart 12 shows the scores per quartile of students in the reading test, i.e., the average scores obtained by the top 25% of students, down to the bottom 25%. More than 75% of students scored over 60% on the reading test, and even the bottom quartile of students scored an average of 54%. The differences between quartiles were relatively small on this test. These scores will be monitored next year to assess whether improvements are visible evenly among all sections of students, the able and the less able.

No students failed to score on the test, and 27.8% of students scored over 80%.

The test was divided into three sections. Section A gave multiple choices of words to complete the sentences about a reading passage. Section B required the students to evaluate whether statements about the passage were true or false, while Section C required students to deduce information from, or attempt to explain, what they had read. As can be seen from Table 14 below, the students found section B the easiest, with an average score of 71%. However, they did not find much greater difficulty with the other sections. This appears to show that many had reasonable facility in understanding both overt and hidden meaning in the reading passage.

Table 14. Scores by Section

Section % Correct

P C T Section A 64% 65% 64%

Section B 70% 72% 71%

Section C 61% 63% 62%

Total 64% 67% 66%

3.1.4 Writing

Table 15 (next page) shows data for each of the components of the writing test: (i) paragraphing and (ii) sentencing, (iii) quality of the ideas expressed, (iv) spelling and punctuation, and (v) handwriting. Few students scored perfectly in these components (6% or less on any component). However, 57% of students in partner schools scored “excellent,” “very good,” or “good” in paragraphing; 71% in sentencing; 76% in quality of ideas, spelling;

Chart 12. Average Student Scores by Quartile in Reading Comprehension Test

72%68%

63%

53%

74% 71%63%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%




63% in punctuation; and 81% in handwriting. The remainder, a substantial proportion in each case, scored “poor” or “very poor.”

Table 15. Percentage Scores for Elements of Written Work in Writing Test

Paragraph Excellent Very Good Good Poor Very Poor PRIORITAS 5% 19% 33% 38% 5%

Comparison 3% 13% 32% 46% 5%

Sentences Excellent Very Good Good Poor Very Poor PRIORITAS 5% 23% 43% 24% 5%

Comparison 4% 19% 42% 30% 5%

Quality of Ideas Excellent Very Good Good Poor Very Poor PRIORITAS 6% 25% 45% 20% 5%

Comparison 3% 22% 42% 28% 5%

Spelling and Punctuation Excellent Very Good Good Poor Very Poor PRIORITAS 3% 23% 40% 30% 5%

Comparison 2% 20% 37% 35% 5%

Handwriting Excellent Very Good Good Poor Very Poor PRIORITAS 6% 34% 41% 14% 4%

Comparison 7% 33% 35% 19% 5%

Chart 13 shows the scores per quartile of students in the writing test from the highest to the lowest 25%. The scores of each quartile will be reported next year to assess whether progress is evenly spread across all learners, from the best to the poorest.


• As in primary schools, much of the emphasis in language teaching has been on teaching about language rather than developing students’ skills in using language. Where students get to write it is often only by inserting words in sentences provided by the teacher or the textbook. There are few opportunities for students to express their own thoughts by, for example, making reports or expressing their feelings or opinions. Reading comprehension also tends to be confined to repeating facts set out in the text. There are few opportunities research information or to read “behind the text.”

• To conform to the competency based curriculum, Bahasa Indonesia training should focus on developing students’ skills in reading and writing. Teachers should be trained to give their students opportunities to write for a variety of purposes including reporting facts

Chart 13. Average Student Scores by Quartile in Writing Test

75%

57%

45%

24%

71%

54%

41%

21%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%




and events, write instructions and expressing their feelings and opinions. Children also need to be given the opportunity and taught to read for different purposes, including for enjoyment and finding information, as well as to reflect on and report back on what they have read.

• Teachers also need to give their students the opportunity to develop their speaking and listening skills by giving them the opportunity to discuss a variety of issues and problems. Speaking and listening can and should often be linked to reading and writing activities with students being invited to discuss what they read and discuss ideas before they begin to write. They should also be given the opportunity to read and give feedback on each other’s work.

3.2 Mathematics Test Grade 8

3.2.1 Introduction

The mathematics test was designed to lay emphasis on testing children’s understanding of mathematical concepts and their ability to apply these concepts in solving problems. The test was revised and some of the questions simplified, following their use between 2005 and 2007 in the assessment of the MBE program in Central and East Java.

3.2.2 The Results

Table 16 shows that the overall average score on the test was 33.9% for partner schools and 32.6% for comparison schools. Boys scored slightly lower than girls on the test. SMP and state schools scored considerable higher, respectively, than MTs and private schools.

There were large differences between individual schools with the highest having an average student score of 82.3% and the lowest 12%.

Table 16. Participant Data and Average Scores in Mathematics Test


Gender Boys 549 46.7% 33.0% 523 46.7% 31.5%

Girls 626 53.3% 34.7% 598 53.3% 33.6%


Religious 397 33.8% 29.7% 296 26.4% 29.5%


Private 183 15.6% 28.6% 187 16.7% 27.3%

Average 1175 100.0% 33.9% 1121 100.0% 32.6%

The results disaggregated by the various groupings are shown in Chart 14 below.



Chart 15 shows the average scores per quartile of students from the highest to the lowest 25%. The scores of each quartile will be reported next year to assess whether progress is evenly spread across all learners, from the best to the poorest.

Chart 16 (next page) shows the percentage of children scoring correct in each of the 15 questions in the test (questions 11 to 15 were more complex and given a weighting of two points in the marking). Table 17 shows the questions which the students found most difficult (less than 30% of students able to answer correctly). Many of the questions which involved problem solving had to be worked in two or more stages (i.e. solving one part of the problem first and then using the answer from that part of the problem to solve the whole problem). Students found this especially difficult.

34% 33% 35% 36%

30%35%

29%33% 32% 34% 34%

29%34%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



Grade 8 - Mathemathics


Chart 15. Distribution of Scores by Quartile in Mathematics Test

59%

38%

25%

14%

57%

36%

24%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%




Table 17. Most Difficult Questions for Students to Answer

Question No.

% Score Description of Question PRIORITAS Comparison Average

9 9% 6% 8% Finding the number of squares within a large square

13 19% 17% 18% Ordering decimals and fractions 10 19% 23% 21% Working out angles in a circle 12 22% 20% 21% Area problem

2 19% 23% 21% Multiplication and approximation 11 26% 25% 26% Open-ended number problem 14 29% 28% 28% Logic problem


• As in primary schools, mathematics is poorly taught in many secondary school classes. Many teachers have a poor understanding on the concepts they are teaching and tend to teach rules and procedures for doing mathematical operations rather than cultivating an understanding of the concepts. As a result students have difficulty applying the concepts in real life and using mathematics as a tool for solving problems.

• Training for teachers should focus on helping both teachers and students to gain an understanding of mathematical concepts, especially by relating them to real situations in areas such as number, money, measurement, geometry and graphical representation.

• Teachers should be encouraged to adopt “problem solving” approaches to teaching mathematics, which also encourage creativity and develop understanding. This can include children being asked to think of a variety of answers to a more open-ended problem, being asked to make up their own questions for other children to answer, and being asked to make up a variety of questions that will result in the same answer.


Chart 16. Analysis of Scores by Question in Mathematics Test

39%

29%

19%

22%

26%

19%

9%

44%

39%

32%

30%

45%

67%

19%

90%

33%

28%

17%

20%

25%

23%

6%

46%

37%

32%

29%

41%

68%

23%

89%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

15. Open-ended area problem

14. Logic problem

13. Ordering decimals and fractions

12. Area problem

11. Open-ended number problem

10. Working out angles in a circle

9. Finding the number of squares within a large…

8. Complex money problem

7. Identifying the correct description of a line graph

6. Geometrical problem

5. Finding unknown numbers

4. Two stage number problem

3. Estimating length

2. Multiplication and approximation

1. Coordinates on a map

Comparison

PRIORITAS


3.3 Science Test Grade 8

3.3.1 Introduction

This science test was developed especially for use with PRIORITAS and piloted in non-project schools in Central Java. It is divided into two sections. Section A has ten questions using the familiar format of multiple-choice questioning to assess children's understanding of concepts they have already learned. Section B consisted of six questions and assessed children's process skills, such as the ability to observe, interpret, and hypothesize (i.e., providing tentative answers based on previous knowledge and experience). Some of the test items also assessed the ability to apply basic science concepts to everyday situations. A number of the test items were adapted from TIMSS6 test items.

3.3.2 The Results

Table 18 shows that the overall average score on the test was 38.4% for both partner and comparison schools. This was the only tests on which boys scored higher than girls in both partner and comparison schools, although their scores were only slightly higher. Students attending SMP scored higher than those attending MTs. State schools scored higher than private schools.

There were large differences between individual schools with the highest having an average student score of 61.1% and the lowest 15.54%.

Table 18. Participant Data and Average Scores in Science Test


Gender Boys 546 47.4% 38.8% 532 46.9% 39.0%

Girls 607 52.6% 38.1% 602 53.1% 37.9%


Religious 393 34.1% 36.6% 307 27.1% 34.9%

School Status

Public 963 83.5% 38.4% 929 81.9% 38.8%

Private 190 16.5% 38.6% 205 18.1% 36.3%

Average 1153 100.0% 38.4% 1134 100.0% 38.4%

The results from Table 18, above, are disaggregated by the various groupings and shown on the next page.

6 The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, which is implemented in many countries with grade 4 and grade 6 students every four years.


Chart 17 shows the average scores per quartile of students from the highest to the lowest 25%. The scores of each quartile will be reported next year to assess whether progress is evenly spread across all learners, from the best to the poorest.

The results from Table 18, above, are disaggregated by the various groupings, and shown in Chart 18 below.


Chart 19 (next page) shows the percentage of children scoring correctly in each of the 15 questions on the test. As can be seen from Table 19 below, students were able to answer questions in the traditional format of questioning (with multiple choice answers) in Section A just as easily those in Section B, which required written answers.

34% 33% 35% 36%

30%35%

29%33% 32% 34% 34%

29%34%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



Grade 8 - Science


Chart 17. Distribution of Scores by Quartile in the Science Test

57%

43%

33%

21%

59%

44%

33%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%




Table 19. Average Scores by Section in the Science Test

Section PRIORITAS Comparison Section A 36% 41%

Section B 41% 38%

Total 38% 40%

Table 20 shows the questions that students had the most difficulty answering correctly. The students were relatively weak in all areas, but were especially so where they had to reason or make deductions from data. They also seem not to have acquired measuring skills through practical work. For example, they had difficulty in reading measurements of a ruler and reading weighing scales and measuring cylinders. They also had a weak knowledge of technical terms and had difficulty in applying concepts to everyday situations.

Table 20. Most Difficult Questions for Students to Answer

Question No.

% Score Description of Question PRIORITAS Comparison Average

A4 16% 15% 15% Understanding buoyancy in water A1 24% 27% 25% Reading measurements on a ruler B2 26% 27% 26% Explaining cause of condensation of water A9 25% 28% 27% Classifying living things A6 25% 30% 27% Knowing names of structures of organs

B4 29% 28% 29% Measuring weight and volume and calculating density


Chart 19. Analysis of Scores by Question in Science Test

59%

66%

29%

29%

26%

35%

32%

25%

49%

56%

25%

33%

16%

61%

42%

24%

53%

59%

28%

30%

27%

33%

43%

28%

55%

63%

30%

36%

15%

67%

46%

27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

B6. Drawing conclusions from an experiment on growing seeds

B5. Predicting the name of a plant from its characteristics

B4. Measuring weight, volume and calculating density

B3. Drawing conclusions from an experiment in a fish tank

B2. Explaining cause of condensation of water

B1. Reading data from a line graph

A10. Safety and heat

A9. Classifying living things

A8. Predicting patterns from a graph

A7. Shape of vessel related to evaporation speeds of water

A6. Knowing names of structures of organs

A5. Understanding the effects of heat and cooling on iron

A4. Understanding buoyancy in water

A3. Identifying animal from description

A2. Separating mixtures of liquids and solids

A1. Reading measurements on a ruler

Comparison

PRIORITAS



• The results of the junior secondary school science test reinforce those of the primary schools test. Science teaching focuses too much on the memorization of rules and concepts and too little on developing understanding of and applying concepts. Too little practical work takes place to support science teaching. Students spend much of their time memorizing information from books rather than developing scientific skills such as observation of real phenomena, data analysis, making hypotheses and drawing conclusions.

• Teacher training should focus on developing students’ scientific skills based on the observation of the real environment and doing experiments to investigate natural phenomena. Students need to be trained in measuring and other observational skills. Training should include helping students to make systematic reports and draw their own conclusions on the experimental and observational work they undertake. Simple technology activities should be promoted to encourage students to apply scientific concepts in real situations.


Annex 1. Average Test Scores by School and District Average Primary School Scores by School

Province Kabupaten Sample Sekolah/School Name

Grade 4 Grade

4 Grade

5

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing Aceh Aceh Jaya PRIORITAS SDN 2 Teunom 32.86% 23.50% 24.17% 31.24%

SDN 2 Calang 26.13% 30.26% 47.78% 27.07%

MIN Teunom 35.27% 37.50% 26.04% 22.50%

MIN Dayah Baro 33.57% 40.25% 29.38% 31.88%

Comparison SDN 3 Teunom 25.00% 20.00% 16.67% 14.92%

SDN 2 Krueng Sabee 21.43% 4.33% 20.00% 21.57%

MIN Krueng Sabee 24.40% 24.44% 17.13% 15.81%

MIN Kampung Baro 23.21% 20.00% 16.15% 29.21%

Bener Meriah PRIORITAS SDN 2 Lampahan 40.89% 30.50% 34.79% 33.71%

SDN 1 Pondok Gajah 29.11% 28.50% 22.78% 24.86%

MIN Sukadamai 31.30% 39.12% 17.89% 26.81%

MIN Lewa Jadi 18.39% 11.75% 8.33% 12.06%

Comparison SDN Karang Jadi 20.89% 38.25% 26.04% 22.57%

SDN Blok C 33.04% 16.75% 20.21% 22.71%

SDN Behgie Bertona 14.66% 1.58% 11.04% 18.04%

MIN Janarata 18.57% 19.00% 15.83% 19.29%

North Sumatera

Labuhan Batu PRIORITAS SDN 118252 Bilah Hulu 45.76% 31.88% 37.75% 29.71%

SDN 114377 Bilah Hulu 32.86% 26.67% 34.72% 28.95%

SDN 112134 Rantau Utara 35.50% 32.35% 37.76% 29.14%

MIN Padang Bulan 49.49% 25.00% 37.22% 27.43%

Comparison SDN 112147 Rantau Selatan 25.95% 42.67% 38.06% 18.10%

SDN 112145 Bilah Barat 46.68% 31.43% 38.69% 37.90%

MIS Perdamaian 45.71% 24.50% 42.92% 26.48%

DN 114381 Bilah Barat 34.44% 46.79% 41.37% 23.81%

Medan PRIORITAS SDN 060849 Medan Barat 64.85% 62.63% 55.04% 32.00%

SDN 060843 Medan Barat 47.62% 40.28% 46.05% 42.29%

SDN 067240 MdnTembung 50.00% 34.50% 45.21% 32.95%

MIN Medan Tembung 56.96% 52.75% 45.60% 34.67%

Comparison SDN 066045 Mdn Helvetia 64.50% 65.88% N/A 43.62%

SDN 064999 Mdn Marelan 49.11% 28.00% 42.92% 34.86%

SDN 064983 Mdn Helvetia 27.86% 42.00% 40.00% 40.76%

MIS Al Hasanah 16.58% 36.43% 28.57% 16.61%

Nias Selatan PRIORITAS SDN 078356 Hilitabaro 56.67% 58.67% 42.78% 34.48%

SDN 071223 Orahili 31.38% 18.93% 38.13% 12.19%

SDN 071212 Sifaoroasi 38.57% 18.50% 8.80% 20.57%

MIN Teluk Dalam 42.60% 36.43% 29.76% 22.67%

Comparison SDN 071211 Helezalulu 18.37% 23.57% 21.39% 13.33%

SDN 071202 Helezalulu 40.97% 45.59% 40.83% 25.14%

SDN 071105 Hilimaenamalo 58.04% 25.00% 30.21% 15.43%



Grade 4 Grade

4 Grade

5

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing SDN 071009 Hilisimaetano 17.14% 35.00% 27.29% 9.90%

Banten Pandeglang PRIORITAS SDN Gunungsari 2 29.76% 35.67% 43.61% 31.43%

SDN Gunung Sari 1 23.81% 45.00% 25.00% 13.52%

SDN Bojong 4 39.29% 57.50% 38.33% 33.14%

MI MA DAHU Bojong 14.29% 36.67% 21.88% 26.67%

Comparison SDN Telagasari 2 Saketi 28.32% 33.57% 30.45% 31.43%

SDN Koranji 1 Pulosari 16.67% 30.00% 20.56% 26.79%

SDN Kadu Hejo 17.03% 34.62% 21.39% 11.29%

MI MA Langonsari 29.76% 15.67% 37.22% 19.05%

Serang PRIORITAS SDN Kadikaran 33.33% 34.33% 21.13% 38.48%

SDN Ciruas 2 47.22% 50.56% 54.39% 35.57%

SDN Cilengsir 33.75% 46.25% 24.38% 37.74%

MI Nurul Falah Kubang 36.61% 51.25% 28.13% 36.71%

Comparison SDN Sukacai 2 36.79% 45.75% 28.96% 17.57%

SDN Singarajan 44.42% 40.31% 34.07% 31.43%

SDN Pontang 2 34.74% 29.09% 25.96% 22.64%

MI Jamiyatul Usbu'iyah 33.33% 39.17% 39.17% 25.43%

West Java Bandung Barat PRIORITAS SDN Mekarasih 27.14% 25.25% 32.92% 30.29%

SDN Maroko 20.71% 7.75% 32.08% 32.00%

SDN 2 Raja Mandala 63.04% 40.50% 55.21% 44.76%

MIS Samsudin 28.04% 22.00% 25.63% 13.43%

Comparison SDN Sukamanah 18.75% 7.75% 30.63% 15.62%

SDN Cicangkang Girang 37.70% 39.44% 34.72% 25.14%

SD Kartika X - 3 59.46% 48.25% 48.75% 34.10%

MIS Cisasawi 20.18% 24.75% 34.38% 23.81%

Ciamis PRIORITAS SDN Sukasari 02 16.61% 16.00% 41.67% 40.19%

SDN 1 Sindangsari 45.59% 50.59% 33.58% 28.95%

SDN 03 Sukamanah 40.63% 44.06% 45.31% 26.86%

MIS Gunungcupu 16.61% 24.75% 36.67% 19.62%

Comparison SDN Pamokolan 02 26.79% 22.75% 30.83% 41.71%

SDN Pamarican 01 36.96% 13.75% 43.54% 40.57%

SDN 05 Kertahayu 45.88% 45.38% 29.49% 25.90%

MIS Sumber Jaya 45.89% 41.50% 32.08% 35.43%

Cimahi PRIORITAS SDN Utama Mandiri 1 36.83% 37.81% 45.57% 39.24%

SDN Sosial 01 57.77% 42.65% 47.50% 48.86%

SDN Cibabat Mandiri 2 52.68% 52.50% 53.92% 42.71%

MIS Sadarmanah 51.43% 48.00% 44.17% 28.75%

Comparison SDN Setiamanah Mandiri 1 41.43% 44.00% 73.06% 37.90%

SDN Karang Mekar Mdr 2 56.79% 50.00% 60.42% 46.57%

SDN Harapan 2 55.00% 36.00% 37.22% 39.05%

MIS Asih Putra 72.53% 49.23% 51.60% 41.14%



Grade 4 Grade

4 Grade

5

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing Central Java

Banjarnegara PRIORITAS SDN 3 Kutabanjar 72.14% 43.33% 48.21% 44.11%

SDN 1 Kutabanjar 56.43% 74.67% 69.72% 49.71%

SDN 1 Kertayasa 62.50% 73.93% 50.00% 45.00%

MI Al Ma'arif Kertayasa 41.88% 47.27% 38.64% 31.43%

Comparison SDN Sigaluh 1 50.00% 66.88% 59.90% 36.79%

SDN Kutayasa 62.80% 68.33% 56.25% 36.19%

SDN Kendaga 1 61.38% 36.88% 43.91% 30.11%

MIN Madukara 45.09% 30.94% 41.20% 26.03%

Batang PRIORITAS SDN Sojomerto 01 59.24% 64.12% 53.92% 50.10%

SDN Karangasem 12 67.86% 86.15% 40.97% 28.38%

SDN Karangasem 07 36.96% 42.50% 46.93% 32.76%

MI Islamiyah Sojomerto 21.43% 31.25% 18.75% 39.22%

Comparison SDN Tulis 2 34.45% 47.06% 51.96% 32.61%

SDN Limpung 1 40.34% 65.59% 62.50% 39.64%

SDN Kaliboyo 1 57.44% 58.75% 62.88% 39.48%

MI Rifaiyah Limpung 52.75% 56.15% 62.18% 40.88%

Purbalingga PRIORITAS SDN Mangunegara 1 59.59% 45.53% 56.94% 49.52%

SDN Cipaku 1 40.28% 58.33% 62.96% 35.43%

SDN Bakulan 1 58.33% 67.67% 47.50% 39.62%

MI Muh. Toyareka 45.88% 46.54% 41.35% 31.71%

Comparison SDN Prigi 1 58.77% 42.73% 50.38% 34.55%

SDN Padamara 1 42.63% 56.25% 53.70% 34.60%

SDN Kejobong 1 59.29% 64.00% 51.94% 34.10%

MI Muh.Gumiwang 45.24% 42.22% 55.42% 34.00%

Semarang PRIORITAS SDN Tengaran 1 75.60% 78.33% 65.97% 59.43%

SDN Sumowono 2 48.90% 48.08% 65.71% 60.95%

SDN Jubelan 1 54.76% 46.67% 48.15% 56.00%

MI Klero 38.89% 58.33% 50.46% 39.62%

Comparison SDN Tuntang 03 78.39% 74.50% 62.92% 39.71%

SDN Kenteng 1 40.55% 47.94% 53.13% 36.43%

SDN Bandiungan 3 54.62% 53.53% 47.14% 31.96%

MI Darul Hikmah Cukilan 1 43.33% 37.00% 38.28% 25.54%

Sragen PRIORITAS SDN Tangkil 3 42.86% 60.42% 57.29% 40.00%

SDN Karangtengah 3 53.33% 49.33% 50.60% 41.11%

SDN Gringging 3 31.03% 48.75% 38.54% 52.38%

MI Muhammadiyah Karanganyar 59.92% 52.78% 47.22% 48.00%

Comparison SDN Purwosuman 1 45.31% 56.56% 54.66% 34.45%

SDN Pilang 1 49.11% 47.50% 47.12% 29.23%

SDN Patihan 2 32.14% 46.25% 46.35% 31.07%

MI Muhammadiyah Pilang 49.81% 45.53% 55.56% 31.43%



Grade 4 Grade

4 Grade

5

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing East Java Blitar PRIORITAS SDN Kebonduren 3 40.48% 39.33% 35.71% 40.00%

SDN Kebonduren 1 46.43% 37.75% 52.50% 62.67%

SDN Kalipang 3 60.00% 61.50% 56.67% 52.57%

MI Miftahul Huda 63.21% 53.00% 49.54% 58.48%

Comparison SDN Tuliskriyo 2 47.62% 40.33% 50.00% 43.62%

SDN Bagelenan 3 39.58% 36.25% 59.29% 51.24%

SDN Bagelenan 2 37.20% 59.17% 55.68% 41.71%

MI Jauharotut Tholibin 33.10% 41.00% 38.89% 40.19%

Madiun PRIORITAS SDN Purworejo 03 72.77% 54.06% 59.64% 36.19%

SDN Ngampel 01 55.61% 48.57% 50.00% 55.05%

SDN Krajan 02 51.25% 43.50% 52.08% 59.62%

MI Sailul Ulum 46.96% 56.00% 29.79% 44.57%

Comparison SDN Sugihwaras 06 40.36% 43.00% 64.17% 54.10%

SDN Sugihwaras 01 35.94% 55.94% 57.87% 56.19%

SDN Balerejo 01 34.64% 60.00% 53.70% 44.19%

MI Salafiyah Barek 53.39% 37.50% 57.08% 39.43%

Mojokerto PRIORITAS SDN Segunung 01 54.02% 61.88% 71.61% 44.57%

SDN Mojowono 51.25% 42.75% 41.88% 25.19%

SDN Mojodowo 46.15% 40.38% 33.68% 48.95%

MI Miftahul Ulum 44.94% 35.83% 43.06% 37.71%

Comparison SDN Trowulan 01 63.10% 43.67% 50.56% 44.95%

SDN Lebaksono 66.76% 65.00% 53.85% 53.71%

SDN Kembangringgit 2 40.00% 54.50% 48.11% 40.76%

MI Nailul Ulum 42.19% 28.44% 39.84% 26.29%

Pamekasan PRIORITAS SDN Pademawu Timur 2 45.71% 38.00% 60.42% 45.52%

SDN Pademawu Barat 2 44.29% 40.75% 53.70% 46.10%

SDN Konang 2 62.39% 31.18% 42.97% 28.95%

MIN Konang 59.38% 53.13% 46.61% 28.00%

Comparison SDN Kangenan 2 47.99% 30.00% 32.50% 50.10%

SDN Kangenan 1 62.14% 52.25% 42.71% 43.81%

SDN Jalmak 1 53.57% 49.50% 40.00% 34.86%

MI Nurul Ulum 2 58.21% 37.50% 31.25% 36.00%

Situbondo PRIORITAS SDN 09 Kilensari 26.53% 30.00% 18.06% 44.76%

SDN 07 Besuki 21.94% 30.00% 38.78% 21.71%

SDN 03 Kilensari 36.97% 63.24% 37.76% 33.90%

MI Al Hikmatul Islamiyah 23.21% 23.00% 23.86% 8.93%

Comparison SDN 4 Sumberkolak 43.68% 34.23% 58.65% 46.86%

SDN 04 Mimbaan 30.95% 57.92% 44.79% 25.52%

SDN 02 Pasir Putih 51.53% 47.86% 46.59% 38.10%

MI Miftahul Huda 37.66% 41.82% 35.98% 29.33%



Grade 4 Grade

4 Grade

5

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing South Sulawesi

Bantaeng PRIORITAS SDN 9 Lembang 34.76% 46.00% 47.50% 28.57%

SDN 7 Letta 26.56% 30.00% 32.55% 36.51%

SD Inpres Pullauweng 33.48% 27.19% 35.94% 26.07%

MIS Nurul Azma 11.38% 10.94% 18.23% 10.00%

Comparison SDN 26 Tino Toa 32.86% 38.67% 36.67% 35.89%

SD Inpres Kalili 35.46% 31.79% 27.38% 29.11%

SD Inpres 22 Beloparang 22.42% 38.89% 29.43% 22.06%

MIS Ma'arif Cedo 21.94% 11.43% 8.93% 6.67%

Maros PRIORITAS SDN 39 Kassi 45.00% 42.33% 35.42% 24.71%

SDN 12 Pakalli I 29.29% 12.00% 33.33% 36.76%

SDN 1 Pakalu I 60.24% 48.33% 38.02% 28.57%

MIN Maros Baru 50.00% 44.00% 41.39% 30.86%

Comparison SDN 48 Bonto Kapetta 39.76% 51.00% 31.94% 45.24%

SDN 233 Bontomaero 30.18% 18.00% 25.63% 21.07%

SDN 103 Hasanuddin 42.41% 43.44% 34.64% 64.19%

MIS DDI Cambalagi 56.43% 45.33% 31.11% 39.25%

Wajo PRIORITAS SDN 234 Inrello 52.38% 59.17% 38.14% 33.02%

SDN 213 Lapongkoda 50.63% 61.18% 54.17% 41.52%

SDN 190 Ballere 32.62% 46.67% 24.74% 44.95%

MIS As'adiyah 3 44.76% 22.00% 13.89% 19.71%

Comparison SDN 266 Pakkanna 48.81% 33.67% 52.78% 62.24%

SDN 265 Assorajang 53.97% 55.28% 57.41% 42.67%

SDN 168 Rumpia 50.00% 23.67% 42.78% 45.14%

MIN Lauwa 41.43% 29.50% 28.33% 42.35%


Average Primary School Scores by District

Province Kabupaten

Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 5

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing

Aceh Aceh Jaya 27.85% 25.28% 25.00% 24.13%

Bener Meriah 26.06% 23.15% 19.67% 22.57%

North Sumatera Labuhan Batu 39.16% 32.96% 38.33% 27.69%

Medan 47.95% 45.20% 43.88% 34.57%

Nias Selatan 38.17% 32.31% 29.65% 19.21%

Banten Pandeglang 24.61% 35.14% 29.62% 24.36%

Serang 37.61% 42.95% 32.46% 30.77%

West Java Bandung Barat 34.34% 26.80% 36.81% 26.83%

Ciamis 33.41% 31.03% 36.82% 32.53%

Cimahi 52.84% 45.12% 51.57% 41.04%

Central Java Banjarnegara 56.71% 54.78% 51.25% 37.55%

Batang 47.44% 57.83% 52.83% 37.65%

Purbalingga 51.32% 53.84% 53.07% 37.40%

Semarang 55.55% 56.07% 54.13% 43.26%

Sragen 45.49% 50.75% 50.00% 38.51%

East Java Blitar 46.22% 45.97% 49.96% 49.11%

Madiun 50.00% 49.29% 51.98% 48.67%

Mojokerto 51.46% 46.09% 48.08% 40.79%

Pamekasan 54.40% 42.36% 43.87% 39.17%

Situbondo 34.99% 42.91% 39.65% 32.18%

South Sulawesi Bantaeng 27.44% 30.64% 31.01% 27.14%

Maros 43.59% 37.30% 33.63% 35.88%

Wajo 47.16% 42.14% 16.18% 40.45%


Average Junior Secondary School Scores by School

Province District Sample Sekolah/School Name

Grade 8 Grade

8 Grade

8

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing Aceh Aceh Jaya PRIORITAS SMPN 1 Krueng Sabee 47.78% 37.50% 20.83% 27.53%

SMPN 1 Jaya 53.33% 66.67% 22.22% 20.65% MTsN Lamno 41.56% 19.06% 15.00% 27.11%

Comparison SMPN 2 Jaya 45.83% 23.06% 20.83% 21.63% SMPN 1 Panga 56.15% 51.92% 17.31% 15.54% MTsN Panga 39.00% 49.50% 19.50% 25.53%

Bener Meriah PRIORITAS SMPN 2 Timang Gajah 71.00% 72.33% 21.33% 28.00% SMPN 2 Bandar 51.00% 63.50% 13.50% 28.10% MTsN Lampahan 42.50% 67.50% 15.75% 25.65%

Comparison SMPN 3 Bukit 53.89% 33.33% 12.22% 35.17% SMPN 1 Bukit 65.25% 62.75% 12.00% 17.42% MTsN Simpang Tiga 62.00% 54.33% 19.00% 24.80%

North Sumatera

Labuhan Batu PRIORITAS SMPN 1 Rantau Utara 78.89% 48.61% 53.33% 38.27%

SMP Muh. Rantau Utara 56.75% 32.50% 20.00% 32.07%

MTs Al-Ittihad 44.69% 30.94% 22.67% 30.80%

Comparison SMPN 2 Rantau Selatan 62.94% 42.65% 25.59% 29.60%

SMPN 1 Rantau Selatan 69.50% 37.50% 30.79% 42.13%

MTs Al Aziz 58.33% 49.67% 23.67% 25.13%

Medan PRIORITAS SMPN 17 Medan 63.25% 40.75% 38.00% 31.33%

SMPN 16 Medan 68.00% 55.75% 42.63% 61.13%

MTsN 2 Medan Tembung 54.00% 56.00% 48.50% 35.40%

Comparison SMPN 20 Medan 84.72% 58.89% 48.00% 41.67%

SMPN 18 Medan 72.25% 34.25% N/A 30.80%

MTs Budi Agung 63.44% 36.56% 15.33% 39.80%

Nias Selatan PRIORITAS SMPN 5 Dharma Caraka 63.42% 46.84% 22.75% 34.80%

SMPN 1 Gomo 41.00% 35.75% 12.50% 20.80%

MTsN Teluk Dalam 60.71% 56.79% 17.86% 35.00%

Comparison SMPN 2 Lahusa 39.50% 33.00% 14.75% 17.67%

SMPN 1 Maniamolo 51.75% 41.25% 35.75% 23.40%

SMP Negeri 3 Maniamolo 63.33% 38.67% 14.67% 18.20%

Banten Pandeglang PRIORITAS SMPN 1 Mandalawangi 58.06% 23.95% 23.95% 19.30%

SMPN 1 Bojong 65.77% 41.15% 32.31% 24.90%

MTs MA. Bojong 60.67% 39.67% 18.67% 25.27%

Comparison SMPN Pulosari 67.06% 65.59% 30.29% 21.50%

SMPN 1 Saketi 64.00% 54.00% 45.71% 25.10%

MTs MA Cikaliung 61.33% 52.00% 12.33% 27.40%

Serang PRIORITAS SMPN 2 Petir 53.24% 57.35% 19.71% 21.75%

SMPN 2 Ciruas 49.21% 40.26% 36.79% 30.75%

MTs Al-Khairiyah Kepandean 53.85% 50.00% 18.33% 29.89%

Comparison SMPN 2 Baros 64.75% 24.47% 24.47% 20.35%

SMPN 1 Pontang 58.44% 45.94% 14.33% 48.60%

MTs Al-Khairiyah Pontang 56.67% 30.56% 25.00% 33.55%



Grade 8 Grade

8 Grade

8

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing West Java Bandung Barat PRIORITAS SMPN 1 CIPATAT 85.00% 61.32% 48.24% 45.07%

SMPN 1 Cihampelas 90.00% 63.00% 60.25% 49.60% MTsN Cihampelas 59.25% 44.75% 20.00% 34.35%

Comparison SMPN 1 Sindang Kerta 84.21% 63.42% 50.75% 49.22% SMPN 1 Parongpong 77.50% 63.25% 58.25% 57.60% MTsN Celak 75.33% 50.33% 33.33% 31.70%

Ciamis PRIORITAS SMPN 2 Banjarsari 83.50% 64.75% 82.25% 59.95% SMPN 1 Sindang Kasih 60.25% 62.25% 55.00% 50.82% MTs Sindangkasih 77.63% 50.53% 44.71% 42.29%

Comparison SMPN 1 Pamarican 76.75% 53.50% 38.00% 49.65% SMPN 1 Cihaurbeuti 66.50% 47.00% 34.00% 44.50% MTsN Banjarangsana 75.50% 63.75% 46.58% 51.45%

Cimahi PRIORITAS SMPN 5 Cimahi 71.05% 50.53% 44.71% 38.76% SMPN 3 Cimahi 70.00% 59.17% 55.50% 35.25% MTsN Sukasari 73.25% 60.00% 44.44% 36.40%

Comparison SMPN 9 Cimahi 73.00% 61.00% 62.67% 55.69% SMPN 10 Cimahi 65.00% 39.72% 34.25% 34.76% MTs Nurul Iman 57.81% 41.25% 25.31% 29.38%

Central Java

Banjarnegara PRIORITAS SMPN 1 Mandiraja 75.31% 46.25% 32.00% 42.38%

SMP Tamsis Banjarnegara 52.14% 43.93% 27.50% 43.33%

MTsN 2 Banjarnegara 76.67% 47.50% 30.00% 48.25%

Comparison SMPN 1 Bawang 80.00% 48.24% 37.65% 51.56%

SMP Muh. Purwareja Klampok 71.25% 48.44% 23.75% 47.82%

MTs Riyadlus Sholihin 60.33% 44.67% 27.14% 41.06%

Batang PRIORITAS SMPN 9 Batang 51.32% 35.53% 32.50% 36.60%

SMPN 2 Subah 72.50% 60.00% 30.00% 41.67%

MTsN Subah 82.50% 66.00% 33.08% 36.73%

Comparison SMPN 2 Limpung 77.31% 58.08% 55.38% 38.33%

SMPN 1 Tulis 73.00% 57.25% 37.00% 55.87%

MTs Tholabuddin 50.00% 57.35% 31.79% 38.13%

Purbalingga PRIORITAS SMPN 2 Kemangkon 70.00% 54.64% 21.67% 28.13%

SMPN 1 Mrebet 66.43% 58.21% 35.00% 25.93%

MTs Ma'arif NU 08 Panican 68.21% 32.14% 33.93% 43.20%

Comparison SMPN 2 Kejobong 63.64% 52.27% 26.25% 45.67%

SMPN 1 Padamara 81.33% 57.00% 40.36% 47.20%

MTs Muh. 7 Kejobong 73.67% 58.33% 39.33% 41.47%

Central Java

Semarang PRIORITAS SMPN 3 Tengaran 74.17% 70.56% 34.41% 41.73%

SMPN 1 Sumowono 78.61% 66.11% 50.26% 44.47%

MTs Al Manar Bener 71.25% 52.92% 31.92% 48.27%

Comparison SMPN 3 Beringin 84.09% 71.36% 36.25% 44.93%

SMPN 2 Ungaran 71.56% 62.19% 51.56% 32.87%



Grade 8 Grade

8 Grade

8

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing MTs Tarqiyatul Himmah 56.07% 33.93% 35.38% 26.33%

Central Java

Sragen PRIORITAS SMPN 3 Sragen 60.00% 66.07% 36.56% 36.07% SMPN 2 Sambungmacan 63.13% 62.50% 37.65% 35.33% MTsN Tanon 76.84% 53.42% 41.05% 26.33%

Comparison SMPN 2 Sidoharjo 72.86% 61.43% 37.50% 38.33% SMPN 1 Gesi 77.00% 59.33% 52.50% 38.60% MTsN Gondang 59.06% 50.31% 29.33% 27.64%

East Java Blitar PRIORITAS SMPN 2 Ponggok 54.75% 42.75% 28.25% 58.13%

SMPN 1 Kanigoro 70.83% 58.33% 45.83% 59.67%

MTsN Langkapan 77.25% 60.75% 27.00% 38.67%

Comparison SMPN 3 Nglegok 64.69% 37.19% 54.38% 55.33%

SMPN 2 Talun 73.53% 57.35% 34.69% 46.67%

MTsN Sumberejo 73.06% 67.50% 44.72% 36.07%

Madiun PRIORITAS SMPN 2 Geger 60.38% 51.15% 39.23% 42.40%

SMPN 2 Dagangan 78.75% 64.00% 29.50% 37.73%

MTs Basmalah 55.83% 40.00% 27.50% 40.30%

Comparison SMPN 2 Sawahan 51.25% 51.88% 26.00% 41.80%

SMPN 2 Jiwan 72.50% 46.25% 27.75% 36.93%

MTs Thoriqul Huda 71.00% 55.50% 41.11% 52.53%

Mojokerto PRIORITAS SMPN 2 Dlanggu 74.72% 43.89% 47.06% 48.20%

SMPN 1 Kemlagi 35.33% 56.00% 28.33% 32.87%

MTs Bustanul Ulum 65.00% 35.00% 33.75% 43.20%

Comparison SMPN 1 Trowulan 86.50% 63.50% 21.75% 42.87%

SMPN 1 Pungging 68.67% 43.33% 43.67% 52.60%

MTs Sabilul Muttaqin 65.00% 43.08% 38.85% 27.80%

Pamekasan PRIORITAS SMPN 1 Pademawu 84.50% 74.00% 53.25% 49.73%

SMPN 1 Larangan 68.00% 42.75% 53.75% 37.67%

MTsN Pademawu 59.33% 50.33% 41.33% 42.93%

Comparison SMPN 7 Pamekasan 73.61% 50.00% 39.17% 27.87%

SMPN 5 Pamekasan 58.16% 30.79% 24.33% 56.73%

MTsN Parteker 78.50% 60.50% 29.75% 40.07%

Situbondo PRIORITAS SMPN 3 Panarukan 66.07% 57.14% 32.08% 41.27%

SMPN 2 Panarukan 66.25% 47.25% 31.75% 45.93%

MTs Nuruf Wafa 36.33% 50.33% 23.00% 29.47%

Comparison SMPN 5 Situbondo 64.67% 29.67% 34.00% 51.60%

SMPN 1 Kapongan 57.08% 31.67% 24.62% 24.93%

MTs Miftahul Ulum 49.17% 35.83% 25.38% 40.80%

South Sulawesi

Bantaeng PRIORITAS SMPN 3 Bissapu 59.06% 43.44% 21.88% 38.20%

SMPN 1 Tompo Bulu 48.44% 32.81% 19.69% 48.65%

MTs Ma'arif Panaikang 45.26% 31.05% 27.37% 37.42%

Comparison SMPN 2 Bissapu 59.38% 43.13% 29.69% 29.81%



Grade 8 Grade

8 Grade

8

Bahasa Indonesia

Math Science Reading Writing SMPN 2 Bantaeng 55.00% 24.67% 28.67% 45.00%

MTs Ma'arif Tumbel Gani 42.19% 26.88% 28.67% 33.75%

South Sulawesi

Maros PRIORITAS SMPN 4 Bantimurung 61.18% 38.24% 26.18% 56.75%

SMPN 1 Turikale 74.17% 43.33% 39.21% 56.35%

MTsN Turikale 68.25% 44.50% 29.50% 36.58%

Comparison SMPN 5 Mandai 80.75% 59.00% 60.00% 51.85%

SMPN 18 Lau 60.29% 30.00% 20.00% 54.15%

SMPN 13 Bontoa 68.75% 45.00% 20.50% 41.10%

Wajo PRIORITAS SMPN 3 Sengkang 52.65% 33.82% 23.42% 44.55%

SMPN 1 Keera 72.75% 60.50% 46.58% 48.05%

MTs As'adiyah Sengkang 84.00% 60.33% 33.13% 46.78%

Comparison SMPN 3 Majauleng 65.88% 32.06% 29.12% 40.47%

SMPN 2 Tanasitolo 69.00% 39.00% 36.67% 43.80%

SMPN 1 Majauleng 77.50% 43.44% 50.00% 58.94%


Annex 2. Comparison between USAID PRIORITAS and Previous Projects on these Tests

The table on the next page and the charts on the following pages summarize the results of tests used by USAID PRIORITAS when they were used under other, previous projects. The results of three other tests not used by USAID PRIORITAS are also included. These are a reading word-recognition test and a reading comprehension test for grade 1 students, which have been replaced by the EGRA and an English language test for grade 8.

The projects that have used these tests and for which results are available include:

• Creating Learning Communities for Children (CLCC), managed by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and funded by the New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID) and others from 1999 to 2010

• Managing Basic Education (MBE), managed by RTI International and funded by USAID from 2003 to 2007

• Mainstreaming Good Practices in Basic Education (MGP-BE), managed by UNICEF and funded by the European Union (EU) from 2007 to 2010

• Decentralized Basic Education 3 (DBE3), managed by Save the Children and funded by USAID from 2005 to 2011

• USAID PRIORITAS, managed by RTI International and funded by USAID from 2012 to the present

Following are some general remarks about the results:

• The number of schools surveyed include only project partner schools, not comparison or control-group schools

• Where projects worked mainly or wholly in provinces in Java (such as MBE), the results are considerably higher than projects that worked mainly outside Java (CLCC and MGMP-BE).

• Students’ results in primary school across all subjects are considerably higher where large proportions of students attended pre-school (TK). It is also significant that pre-school participation is higher in Java than elsewhere, which may explain some or much of the better results from projects working in Java. Students who have attended TK appear to have largely mastered word recognition by the time they enter grade 1.

There are three cautionary factors in these comparisons.

• The primary school mathematics test was partially revised in 2004 after experience of using it on CLCC.

• The grade 8 Mathematics test was somewhat simplified for the USAID PRIORITAS and MGMP-BE districts, based on experience of its use in MBE.

• The tests for USAID PRIORITAS were administered between two and five months earlier in the school year than in the other projects (November–December for PRIORITAS, compared with February–April for other projects).


TEST SCORES FROM VARIOUS PROJECTS PROJECT NAME

AcehRound of Testing 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3Year of Testing 2003 2010 2004 2005 2006 2005 2006 2006 2008 2009 2010 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014# of provinces (of which on Java) 6 (2) 6 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (0) 6 (1) 6 (1) 6 (1) 6 (4) 6 (4) 6 (4) 7 (4)

PRIMARY SCHOOLS ASSESSMENTS# of districts (of which on Java) 15 (5) 15 (5) 9 (9) 9 (9) 9 (9) 11 (11) 11 (11) 2 (0) 12 (2) 12 (2) 12 (2) 25 (15) 25 (15) 25 (15) 23 (15)# of schools surveyed 45 45 54 54 54 66 66 20 72 72 72 92 % of Children with pre-school 42.4 66.4 90.7 92.7 92.5 91.3 95.7 81.7 55.2 57.9 71.0 78.8 Reading Word Recognition, Grade 1 47.1 71.3 87.3 91.4 94.6 87.9 91.9 50.4 56.4 61.9 70.6 Reading Comprehension Grade 1 20.5 59.4 60.8 61.8 67.6 56.6 63.8 23.8 19.9 20.2 30.4 Reading Comprehension Grade 4 40.1 46.9 53.0 62.8 64.8 59.9 61.4 38.8 35.7 35.9 39.6 43.0 Writing Grade 4 34.1 40.4 58.1 54.5 58.5 51.0 58.2 40.2 38.9 43.0 45.6 41.8 Mathematics Grade 4 47.0 47.0 61.1 65.5 65.0 64.7 65.0 41.3 39.4 38.1 43.7 40.7 Science Grade 5 28.8 39.8 44.3 50.4 53.4 48.8 54.5 29.0 28.1 28.9 31.9 35.6

JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ASESSEMENTS# of districts (of which on Java) 20 (20) 20 (20) 12 (2) 12 (2) 12 (2) 25 (15) 25 (15) 25 (15) 23 (15)# of schools surveyed 60 60 36 36 36 54 54 54 69 Reading Comprehension Grade 8 78.3 78.5 58.7 64.9 66.2 66.6 73.0 75.1 64.0 Writing Grade 8 54.1 62.1 46.6 50.6 46.4 51.6 60.4 64.7 50.1 Mathematics Grade 8 36.7 35.2 23.3 26.7 27.4 32.0 41.7 47.4 33.9 English Grade 8 41.4 45.7 26.0 26.4 27.4 38.4 49.7 46.8 Science Grade 8 38.4

PROVINCES Aceh

Central & East Java, South Sulawesi,

NTT, NTB & Papua

Central & East JavaRiau, Lampung,

Banten, NTB, Gorontalo, Maluku

N. Sumatra, Banten, West, Central & East Java, South Sulawesi

USAID PRIORITAS

Aceh, N. Sumatra, Banten, West, Central

& East Java, South Sulawesi

CLCC MBE MGP-BE DBE3Phase 1 Phase 2


PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS

40 47

53

63 65

39 36 36 40 43

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2010 2004 2005 2006 2006 2008 2009 2010 2012

CLCC MBE MBEAceh

MGP-BE PRIORI-TAS

Reading Comprehension Grade 4

34 40

58 55 59

40 39 43 46 42

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2010 2004 2005 2006 2006 2008 2009 2010 2012

CLCC MBE MBEAceh

MGP-BE PRIORI-TAS

Writing Grade 4

20

59 61 62 68

24 20 20 30

- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2003 2010 2004 2005 2006 2006 2008 2009 2010

CLCC MBE MBEAceh

MGP-BE


34 40

58 55 59

40 39 43 46 42

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2010 2004 2005 2006 2006 2008 2009 2010 2012

CLCC MBE MBEAceh

MGP-BE PRIORI-TAS

Science Grade 5

47

71

87 91 95

50 56

62 71

- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

2003 2010 2004 2005 2006 2006 2008 2009 2010

CLCC MBE MBEAceh

MGP-BE

Reading Word Recognition Grade 1

47 47

61 66 65

41 39 38 44 41

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2010 2004 2005 2006 2006 2008 2009 2010 2012

CLCC MBE MBEAceh

MGP-BE PRIORI-TAS

Mathematics Grade 4


JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS

78 79

5965 66 67

73 7564

0102030405060708090

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2009 2010 2011 2012

MBE MGP-BE DBE3 PRIORI-TAS


5462

4751

4652

6065

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2009 2010 2011 2012


Writing Grade 8

37 35

2327 27

32

4247

34

05

101520253035404550

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2009 2010 2011 2012


Mathematics Grade 8

4146

26 26 27

38

50 47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2009 2010 2011

MBE MGP-BE DBE3

English Grade 8


Annex 3. Criteria for Marking the Grade 4 Writing Test

Tulisan (3)

3. Rapih, teratur, bersambung

2. Kerapihan kurang tetapi mudah dibaca 1. Kurang rapih dan sulit dibaca

0. Sangat kurang, kurang dapat dibaca

Ejaan (3)

3. Sempurna

2. Sedikit kesalahan 1. Banyak kesalahan tetapi masih dapat dimengerti

0. Hampir semua salah sehingga kurang dapat dimengerti

Tanda Baca (3)

3. Lengkap (titik, hurup besar dan tanda baca lain)

2. Titik dan hurup besar lengkap, lain-lain belum 1. Tanda baca kurang lengkap

0. Belum ada tanda baca

Panjang (4)

4. Lebih dari satu halaman

3. Lebih dari 1/2 halaman 2. Lebih dari dua kalimat

1. Satu atau dua kalimat

Mutu bahasa (7)

7-6. Gagasan menarik, kreatif dan diuraikan jelas dan berurut

5-4. Gagasan baik tetapi kurang original, penjelasan cukup baik.

3-2. Gagasan kurang menarik tetapi masih dapat dimengerti 1. Gagasan kurang menarik dan kurang dapat dimengerti

Jumlah (20)


Annex 4. Summary of the Tests and their Development Test Development History Broad Competencies Assessed Notes on the Tests

Reading Grade 1 Test 1 Test 2

Developed by Muhlisoh (Puskur), Elizabeth Sweeting and Stuart Weston in 1996

Word recognition Simple comprehension

The tests are administered orally to 12 grade 1 children in each class, chosen at random Words in the word recognition test are taken from the grade 1 reading book. Only students able to complete test 1 are asked to do test 2

Bahasa Indonesia Grade 4 Reading

Developed by Muhlisoh (Puskur) and Elizabeth Sweeting and Stuart Weston in 1996.

Finding information in a passage Inferring information Predicting future events

The reading test is based around comprehension of a story. The writing test is based on an essay about a picture. The test is administered to half the class, while the other half takes part in the mathematics test (max. 20 per school)

Writing Handwriting Spelling Punctuation Ability to express ideas logically Length of writing

Mathematics Grade 4 Revised substantially in 2004 by Ujang Sukandi (Puskur) and Ar. Asari (UM)

Various of operations of whole numbers and fractions Number series Shape Length Solving problems (money, shape, number series)

The questions have a mixture of multiple choice, closed ended calculation, problem solving and open-ended problems requiring creativity The test is administered to half the class, while the other half takes part in the B. Indonesia test (max. 20 per school)

Science Grade 5 Designed in 1996 by Gunadi (Puskur) Minor revisions in 2002 and 2004 by Masjudi (Puskur), Sup. Koes (UM) and Andreas Priyono (UNES)

Air Water Plants and animals Food chain Force and energy Resources etc. Process skills including observing, interpreting data and hypothesizing

This test is divided into two sections. Section A used the format familiar to students of multiple choice questioning to assess children's understanding of concepts they have already learnt. Section B assesses children's active learning or process skills such as the ability to observe, interpret and hypothesize and requires the children to apply basic science concepts to everyday situations.


Test Development History Broad Competencies Assessed Notes on the Tests

Bahasa Indonesia Grade 8 Reading

Developed in 2004 by Wahyudi (ex-Puskur), Moh. Najid (UNESA) and Lynne Hill (MBE)

Finding information in a passage Inferring information Predicting future events

The reading test is based around comprehension of a story. It includes multiple choice, right and wrong and essay style answers. The writing test is based on an essay about a picture. The test is administered to half the class, while the other half takes part in the mathematics test (max. 20 per school)

Writing Paragraphs Sentencing Quality of ideas Spelling and punctuation Handwriting

Mathematics Grade 8 Developed in 2004 by Ujang Sukandi (Puskur) and Ar. Asari (UM). Revised 2008 by Ujang Sukandi and Eddy Budiono (UM)

Number operations Graphs and maps Geometry and angles Measurement Problems solving using a variety of concepts

The test is divided into a multiple choice answer section and an open ended answer section based around problem solving. The questions have a mixture of multiple choice, closed ended calculation, problem solving and open-ended problems requiring creativity The test is administered to half the class, while the other half takes part in the B. Indonesia test (max. 20 per school)

Science Grade 8 Developed in 2012 by Ferdy Rondonuwu (Universitas Satya Wacana, Salatiga) and Hadi Suwono (Universitas Negeri, Malang)

Classifying animals and plants Buoyancy Expansion and contraction Evaporation and condensation Process skills including measurement of length, weight and volume, observing, interpreting data and hypothesizing

This test is divided into two sections. Section A used the format familiar to students of multiple-choice questioning to assess children's understanding of concepts they have already learnt. Section B assesses children's active learning or process skills such as the ability to observe, interpret and hypothesize and requires the children to apply basic science concepts to everyday

Note: UM=Universitas Negeri Malang; UNESA=Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Date post:	20-Aug-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

BASELINE MONITORING REPORT, VOLUME 2: Assessing the … · 2018. 9. 10. · Prioritizing Reform,...

Documents