Comments

Bob, many thanks for this insightful posting - and for raising some key issues. The key point you make, for me, is the following: “With more than 40 years of Indonesian development experience, it is reasonable to enquire why we do not have stronger evidence of the actual sustainability of benefits from aid to education. Why have the ten donors in the analysis, who have provided over USD 4.5 billion in assistance since 1973, been so incurious and for so long about sustainability arising from this massive investment to support Indonesian education?” What has this money achieved? An optimistic response will point to the huge gains in access. According to Indonesian Government data, 81 per cent of children aged 6 to 18 are now enrolled in school (net enrolment rate). When children (or adults) outside the specified age ranges are included (gross enrolment rate), the percentage increases to 91 per cent. Gross enrolment in primary school is 109%, in junior-secondary, 101%. Participation in early childhood has reached about 70% (a massive increase over the last decade) and in senior secondary 76%. These are significant achievements for a young nation which at the time of independence provided schooling to less than six per cent of its citizens. Dropout rates have reduced dramatically. In 2011-12, just one per cent of children enrolled did not complete primary school, with over 95 per cent continuing on to junior secondary schooling. The dropout rate for junior-secondary is 1.7%. While still an issue in remote areas, attendance rates (for both teachers and children) are also improving. Gender parity has largely been achieved. Adult literacy is around 95%. But when we look for gains in quality and in learning outcomes, the story is rather different. While we might argue about the validity and relevance of international tests, there do tell us something. Indonesia ranked 64 out of 65 participating countries in the last PISA test (2012). The country’s ranking dropped from 57 in 2009. TIMSS and PIRLS rankings are similar – and, similarly, have declined over the years of testing. After nearly 25 years working in education in Indonesia, a question I often ask myself is, if we already know what works (as we sometimes claim), then why are we still here, and why are doing pretty much the same thing, after 30-40 years? Why hasn’t active learning become mainstream? Why isn’t school-based management working as effectively as it could be? Why are the management and governance of basic education still mired by corruption and inefficiency? The answer you offer is a good one: We need to “approach educational development with a better balance of cultural, political and technical realities in both design and implementation.” This is well demonstrated in the studies referred to in the post. It is the key to Guthrie’s argument. And I think it could be the key to the future in Indonesia. We know that Indonesian teachers can ‘get it’. They are just as capable as any of implementing active learning approaches in their classrooms, for example. But how many actually sustain the changes beyond the life of a project? I am not convinced that many of the changes are sustained in any real way. Sustained change requires changes in cultural perspectives (beliefs, norms, relationships, roles, expectations …). And this is unlikely to be achieved with a few cascade training events – even when followed up with coaching. Donors also need to work in the political context in order to get sustained change. People behave as they do (in the classroom, the office or the community) because they are motivated to do so by complex sets of incentives and disincentives. If we continue to ignore this and assume that teachers will change their practice (despite the technical and cultural hurdles) – with no real incentive to do so, we are surely kidding ourselves! I don’t just mean financial incentives, of course. But why would a teacher adopt an active learning approach if it (1) takes a lot more effort, (2) earns disfavor from colleagues, parents and supervisors who don’t understand or appreciate the approach, (3) confuses kids, sometimes making them unruly and disruptive in the short term, (4) does not help them get better exam scores (the only vaguely objective measure of their performance), and (5) does not advance their career? And here, perhaps is the key thing. In order to work in the political and cultural dimensions, foreign assistance programs must be far more integrated and ‘owned’ by local partners. On a slightly optimistic note, I do see that this is increasingly the case. Foreign consultants, like me, are a very small part of the picture these days. We bring something that I think is still needed – a certain broader perspective, a kind of objectivity, a proficiency in English and familiarity with international standards, rigorous thinking and so forth that is still needed – but it is only a small part of the equation. But the real problem, highlighted in this post, is that we really don’t know for sure. We don’t know what impact all those programs, all that funding, has had. We really don’t know what works, from a technical, cultural and political perspective.

This was worth the read. Great stuff Michael!!

Thank you Michael (and Mark Moran). This is a great article for Devpolicy to post on <a href="http://crc-rep.com/events/national-sorry-day" rel="nofollow">National Sorry Day</a>. I bought 'Serious Whitefella Stuff' in the Adelaide Airport bookshop last week. It is such a compelling read that (due to plane delays) I managed to read it all by the time I touched down in Darwin. Mark hints at his international development experiences in the book, and I believe that there are mutually beneficial lessons to be learnt from indigenous experiences and international development work. Working in Indigenous Australia has an added complexity that quite often, the Australian government is both the funding agency and the 'partner government'. One would normally assume that this would make life easier, but this is also part of the wicked problem ....

Great and widely relevant blog Michael. Do modern work practices, regardless of bureaucratic policies, promote "a long, jointly-undertaken voyage"?

Thanks for the review Michael - I look forward to reading the book. Another work I'd recommend on the same issue is "A different inequality" by Diane Austin-Broos, an anthropologist who has been quite critical of her own profession when it comes to indigenous policy in Australia. When I read it a few years back it really resonated, and (having read only your review of "Serious Whitefella Stuff") I suspect many of the arguments are shared. Mark Moran actually reviewed "A different inequality" when it was published - see <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-20/moran-a-different-inequality/3961856" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

Thank you Michael, You raise issues that I am passionate about and I couldn't agree more. I would also encourage anyone interested in 'development' to read Tess Lea's Bureaucrats and Bleeding Hearts. Cheers, Phil

Great review of this important book. The findings resonate very much with <a href="http://www.clc.org.au/files/pdf/2014_Evaluation_of_CLCs_Development_work-La_Trobe_University.pdf" rel="nofollow">our review of Central Land Council's community development program in Central Australia</a> (see sections 7 & 8) which despite the dysfunctional and ever-shifting policy environment within which it works seemed to be supporting local processes to solve problems, not least because a) the majority of funding for this is from Aboriginal people's own royalty payments and b) the legitimacy of the Land Council as an Aboriginal organisation which provides an important brokering role.

Thanks Marc for your comment. It is possible we are more aligned than maybe your response queries. I am pretty sure as an individual I did sign onto the Campaign page a long while back. While I am not overly active, I do apply my very rudimentary social media skills to support the Campaign. My commentary was not to question where the private sector was on the day – and you know from our past dealings I think more opportunity should be explored to bring a range of actors together. I also hope my commentary made it clear that I actually tip my hat to the leadership from the NGO community. I do not disagree that there is room for private sector to also be vocal, though possibly there are various ways in which messages and opinions can be delivered. As Robin Davies’ separate post confirms, none of us should have walked away from viewing the announcement with a feeling that things are fully back on track. There are statements being made during an election cycle; sometime after that a government that forms then ‘governs’ and history shows us that not everything always plays out exactly as hoped before the polls closed. My commentary meant to talk to the announcement, its content, which left me with a feeling that something is missing – it might exist, but it wasn’t discussed. The fact is that the Parliamentary Secretary introduced the event stating we would hear of a “policy that Tanya will announce.” Beyond the discussion of funding commitments to NGOs and UNHCR, Ms Plibersek agreed to stop the clock on aid cuts. She also talked to the issue of transparency. That was it. The announcement on a number of occasions referred to sectors and activities where Australia is making a difference - in agriculture, in governance, in policing and so on. These are all areas where the private sector is also currently working, including in partnership with the aid program, to make a difference. I know the government’s view on the role of the private sector in development. I would have liked to have heard something about this in the opposition’s ’policy’ announcement on the weekend.

I am not sure that this is a particularly helpful or effective influencing strategy. This hardly comes across as welcoming and inclusive. And I note Robin's comments on this which are all pertinent. I would ask whether the private sector has been 'asked nicely' to support this campaign in a way with which they are able and willing to engage.

Bob, I'm struck by the bridge analogy, and wonder if the original project goal was to replace the old bridge or supplement it (to provide the two-lane highway). What I'm getting at here is that the outcomes of a project might not always (or often) be the ones the funder planned for, and in some cases there may be unanticipated changes, both for better or for worse. This suggests to me that when we revisit projects to evaluate sustainability we cannot simply rely on quantitative indicators devised to measure predicted outcomes from the project proposal -- we need to be much more flexible and insightful. On the whole, my impression is that revisiting projects after completion, even very expensive projects, is the exception rather than the rule, and that such ex-post-facto evaluations are not done well or over sufficient time to judge sustainability with any sophistication. I used to teach planners and architects, and there is a well-know concept in the field known as post-occupancy evaluation, which involves visiting built structures some time after completion to compare the designers' conceptions of how the space would be used with the way that the occupants in fact use it. Such evaluations are in fact extremely rare, and most architects regard them with indifference. Hmmm.

To be fair, it's not at all obvious how a corporation would sign up to support the campaign from the web page linked above. It's pitched at individuals. One <a href="http://australianaid.org/action/host/" rel="nofollow">sub-page</a> indicates that you can support the campaign 'whether you’re a surfer, or a musician, a library or a church' but again doesn't provide any obvious way for an institution rather than an individual to sign up. And <a href="http://australianaid.org/who-we-are/#join" rel="nofollow">this</a> 'Who we are' page also provides no obvious way for an organisation to join; in fact it tends to imply that the 'we' refers to a pre-formed, closed group. It's not just that the web site asks for an individual's name; it's also that it urges people to 'pledge their vote' for a fairer world. Corporations and other institutions don't vote, and I wonder about the wisdom of this tactic in any case. It sounds almost as if a person has to make a theoretical commitment to vote in favour of the contender that's most generous on aid, which right now is certainly not the Coalition. Presumably the idea was to build a community of people who want to say that the parties' aid policies will be important to them as they decide what to do with their votes -- 'aid matters to me' rather than 'I pledge my vote'.

How predictable this is when knowing the truth behind the "aid". My expat friends and I, living in Indonesia, have discussed "aid" at length and have come to the conclusion that it is simply money transfers between entities. (Some say criminal types.) Of course Education is the first to be cut. If you educate the people they will see that corruption is taking money from them. If they are healthy they will be able to see and hear clearly that the aid that should go to them is going in someone's pocket. And, if they have good food, they will live long enough to change the society and be self-sustaining, which is definitely not good for getting more "aid" monies. As an engineering person, I see the construction is sub-par and expensive. In reality, a project is an excuse to transfer monies. Health professionals cannot understand why so much is spent and so little is being done in health care or health education. In the education sector, we have seen that there is no real education of students, everyone passes so that the monies can be issued. My friendly group has investigated many cases and found that only 40% of the "aid" gets to the designated project. 60% is spent in overhead. In the U.S., we have two organizations that have those kind of numbers; one is the mafia, with their money laundering business, and the other is the federal government, whose business is spending the taxpayers hard earned money. Which one of these does AusAid fall under? Faith-based groups and private investors get more done with less money by having less government involvement. The boots-on-the-ground people work hand in hand with those who want better lives. If there was more transparency in government and fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers (investors), the world would change in a very short time.