Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015
This report has been prepared by Mark Fiorello of PT SOLIDARITAS Consultindo Abadi (SOLIDARITAS), the consultant contracted by the Education Partnership – Performance Oversight and Monitoring unit (EP-POM) on behalf of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to support Indonesia Mengajar (IM) to summarize the results of a “performance analysis and identification of relevant lessons from comparable organizations” (cumulatively, the “assignment” or the “review”). This is the final deliverable of the assignment.
This report is intended to provide IM with a summary of the key findings that have emerged over the course of the assignment. These findings are intended to be used as a reference by IM for further developing and refining its overall strategy for the period 2016-2021 and beyond. DFAT (and more specifically DFAT’s Education Unit at the Australian Embassy in Jakarta) is a potential secondary user of the information presented in this report.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015
Australian Aid—managed by The Palladium Group on behalf of the Australian Government
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance
of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 ii
Final Report – 11 May 2016
This report has been compiled by Mark Fiorello of PT SOLIDARITAS Consultindo Abadi, with funding
from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia through the Performance Oversight and
Monitoring Unit of the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Education.
The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Australian Government or of the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Education.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 iii
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
2. Background and Context ................................................................................................... 2
3. Approach ...................................................................................................................... 4
4. IM’s Program Logic ............................................................................................................ 5
4A. IM’s Larger Goals.................................................................................................. 6
4B. IM’s End of Program Outcomes ............................................................................ 7
4C. IM’s “Change Pathways”....................................................................................... 8
4D. IM’s Influence Activities...................................................................................... 10
4E. IM’s Foundational Activities and Organizational Practices................................... 10
5. Key Results of the Performance Reflection ..................................................................... 12
5A. The Key to Understanding IM: the Concept of ‘Adhocracy’................................. 12
5B. Areas of Strong Performance.............................................................................. 13
5C. Areas of Uncertain Performance......................................................................... 15
5D. Areas of Potential Improvement......................................................................... 17
6. Potential Lessons Learned from Other Organizations ..................................................... 26
7. Items for Consideration ................................................................................................... 29
Figure 1: IM as an "Adhocracy" (adapted from Mintzberg)................................................... 13
Figure 2: Varying Degrees of Alignment................................................................................ 25
Figure 3: Changing Role of PMs Over Time ........................................................................... 29
Annex 1 : IM Program Logic Diagrams .................................................................................. 35
Annex 2 : IM Program Logic Including Performance Reflection Results................................. 39
Annex 3 : Cerita Perubahan Gerakan Bima Mengajar ........................................................... 40
Annex 4 : Summary of Crowd-Sourcing Responses............................................................... 46
Annex 5 : Notes from Knowledge Sharing Discussion with Kinerja........................................ 52
Annex 6 : Rapid Outcome Assessment (ROA) Proses ............................................................ 56
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 1
This report has been prepared by Mark Fiorello of PT SOLIDARITAS Consultindo Abadi
(SOLIDARITAS), the consultant contracted by the Education Partnership – Performance Oversight
and Monitoring unit (EP-POM) on behalf of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
(DFAT) to support Indonesia Mengajar (IM) to summarize the results of a “performance analysis and
identification of relevant lessons from comparable organizations” (cumulatively, the “assignment”
or the “review”). This is the final deliverable of the assignment.
This report is intended to provide IM with a summary of the key findings that have emerged over
the course of the assignment. These findings are intended to be used as a reference by IM for
further developing and refining its overall strategy for the period 2016-2021 and beyond. DFAT (and
more specifically DFAT’s Education Unit at the Australian Embassy in Jakarta) is a potential
secondary user of the information presented in this report1
The report is organized as follows:
Section 2 provides a brief summary of the background and context of the review.
Section 3 provides a brief overview of the approach to this review.
Section 4 describes (in narrative form) IM’s program logic that was developed as part of
Section 5 presents the key results of this assignment, in terms of (a) areas where IM’s
performance is generally considered to be strong, (b) areas where IM’s performance is
uncertain, and (c) areas where IM’s performance could potentially be improved. Section 5
also presents the concept of “adhocracy” as a frame for understanding IM’s performance.
Section 6 briefly describes two organizations which may be considered as sources of
learning for IM.
Section 7 presents a list of 10 “items for consideration” for IM regarding its strategy and
organizational practice for the period 2016-2021.
Six annexes are also provided to this report.
1 DFAT is currently developing plans for the future of its education programming following the completion of its flagship
Australia-Indonesia Education Partnership in mid-2016. It also funds the INOVASI program, which focuses on
innovation to improve learning outcomes and therefore has potential to learn from or collaborate with IM.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 2
2. Background and Context
The idea for and overall scope of this assignment was the result of a series of discussions between
DFAT, EP-POM, and IM over the course of 2015. In line with its priority development objectives as
outlined in its Aid Investment Plan for 2015-20192
, DFAT has expressed interest to support IM as
part of its emerging strategy to support “local solutions to local problems”.
IM itself is a relatively young organization, having been established in 2009. As described in greater
detail in Section 4 below, IM focuses primarily on:
Placing recent graduates (Pengajar Muda, or PM) in primary schools in remote villages
Encouraging the emergence and growth of locally-led community and district-level
initiatives to improve educational provision.
Facilitating networking and interaction between and among key ‘movers’ (in IM
terminology, penggerak) in the education sector.
IM’s overall vision and strategy has not changed significantly over the first five years of its existence
(2010-2015, which it refers to as “Phase 1”). However, over that period, the organization has
compiled a significant amount of knowledge and experience, which it has used to iteratively adapt
and improve its work over time. That experience and knowledge has formed the basis of IM’s
“intentional design” (Rancangan Terarah) 3
for “Phase 2” of its existence, namely the 5-year period
from 2016-2021. However, while IM’s experiential knowledge is rich and in many cases actively
used internally, much of it remains ‘tacit’ – in other words, not explicitly documented or
summarized. At this point in IM’s existence, its leadership feels that there are a series of
unanswered questions about the organization’s overall strategy and performance. One potential
cause for the existence of such unanswered questions is IM’s lack of an explicit and easily
understood ‘theory of change’ 4
, which describes (a) the overall goals/objectives to which IM desires
to contribute, (b) IM’s overall strategy and main activities for realizing its goals/objectives, and (c)
the ‘causal channels’ through which IM’s implementation of its strategy will drive the emergence of
desired changes over time.5
Given the above, at this point in time (i.e. the transition between Phase 1 and Phase 2), IM
leadership feels it would benefit from an exercise to:
Review, clarify, and (as necessary) further develop IM’s ‘theory of change.
2 The three objectives are: “effective economic institutions and infrastructure”, “human development for a productive
and healthy society”, and “an inclusive society through effective governance.” For more information see:
3 IM’s own terminology, borrowed from Outcome Mapping.
4 In this report, the terms ‘theory of change’ and ‘program logic’ are used largely interchangeably. In Bahasa Indonesia,
the term ‘logika perubahan’ has been used consistently over the course of the assignment.
5 It is important to note that most of the key elements of IM’s theory of change were already in place at the beginning of
the review due to the fact that, since its inception, IM has used outcome mapping to define its expected outcomes and
its strategy for achieving those outcomes. However, the results of IM’s outcome mapping efforts have been used
internally and predominantly for planning purposes, and have not yet been accessible to a wider audience, or used
more widely as a reference within the organization. IM’s use of outcome mapping has also focused explicitly on one
particular component of IM’s work, namely the placement of PMs in schools, rather than covering the entire work of
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 3
Reflect on and, to the extent possible, conduct a more structured assessment of various
aspects of IM’s strategy to date.
Identify other organizations which may be relevant for IM to learn from, and, to the extent
possible, identify key lessons from those organizations that IM can use to further improve
its effectiveness going forward.
DFAT – through EP-POM – has graciously agreed to support IM in conducting a collaborative review that
provides meaningful insight to IM on the aforementioned topics, and also supports and builds IM’s
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 4
This review has been conducted in a series of general steps:
An inception phase comprising a series of initial meetings and discussions with IM, EP-POM,
and DFAT to clarify the scope and focus of the assignment. This phase resulted in the
production of a “mobilization report”.
A review of key documents.
The development of IM’s theory of change, through two participatory workshops with IM
staff and follow-up discussions.
A field visit to Kabupaten Bima, one of the “in service” districts (i.e. districts where IM has
placed PMs) for the period of 2011-2016.
A series of interviews and informal discussions with various individuals involved with IM,
including the former executive director, an IM consultant, staff from IM’s headquarters in
Jakarta (hereafter referred to as “Galuh”), and several former PMs.
The identification of a variety of areas of potential improvement and some organizations
which could potentially act as a source of learning for IM related to those areas.
Two “Aide Memoire” presentations: one targeted at IM leadership (IM’s Executive Director
and Head of its Board), and one targeted at DFAT (the DFAT Counsellor responsible for
education programming, the DFAT Education Advisor, and other members of the DFAT
The general approach to the assignment has been collaborative in nature, with several particular
activities (e.g. program logic development, the use of the Rapid Outcome Assessment methodology,
and various informal discussions) also intended to provide opportunities for capacity strengthening.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 5
4. IM’s Program Logic
As described above, a major focus of this assignment was to clarify and further develop IM’s
program logic (logika perubahan).
This review has developed 4 different versions of IM’s Program Logic:
1. A high-level version (kerangka umum) of the program logic for IM “1.0” (the period 2010-
2015/16) that presents a general overview of:
a. IM’s larger goals (tujuan besar);
b. the general ways (“change pathways”, or jalur perubahan) in which it attempts to
create change; and
c. its key influence activities (kegiatan pengaruh), foundational activities (kegiatan
pondasi), and organizational practices (praktek organisasi).
2. A more detailed version of the program logic for IM 1.0, which includes:
a. a slightly more complete description of IMs larger goals;
b. a list of “end of program outcomes” (capaian akhir program) defined in fully-
developed outcome statements by actor type;
c. indicative intermediate outcomes (hasil antara) that describe key changes which are
necessary as preconditions for the achivement of the targeted end of program
d. a more detailed list of key influence activities and foundational activities.
3. A high-level version of the program logic for IM “2.0” (the period 2016-2021), which includes
suggested changes based on the results of this review.
4. A more detailed version of the program logic for IM “2.0” (the period 2016-2021),
which includes the suggested changes and also indicates where IM should (a) further
clarify its targeted goals and outcomes and (b) further develop its strategy to achieve
These four versions (in Bahasa Indonesia) are contained in Annex 1, as well as in a separate
(editable) powerpoint document. It is important to note that the IM program logic has been
developed using a “people-centered approach” (pendekatan yang fokus pada aktor), which means
that all outcome statements are defined in terms of the expected actions of certain actor types.
This is in line with IM’s use of Outcome Mapping, which focuses on defining change in terms of the
behaviors of key actors (in OM terminology, “boundary partners” / mitra langsung). For the
purposes of this assignment, “IM” is considered to comprise both Galuh staff and PMs, since these
are contracted by Yayasan Indonesia Mengajar. All other actors are considered to be outside the
“sphere of control” of Indonesia Mengajar.
IM’s overall program logic for IM 1.0 is described briefly in narrative form below. Proposed changes
to the program logic for IM 2.0 are described as part of the “items for consideration” in Section 7.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 6
4A. IM’s Larger Goals
One defining characteristic of IM is that it has two separate but equal goals.
IM’s first goal is around the provision of education in Indonesia. Referring to Indonesia’s
constitution, which mandates “enlightening the life of the Indonesian nation” (mencerdaskan
kehidupan bangsa) as a goal of the Indonesian government, IM sees an “intelligent nation” (bangsa
Indonesia hidup cerdas) as an overarching goal, and an overall reason for its existence. The
achievement of this overaching goal will be achieved through two subsidiary goals: the effective
provision of primary education (pendidikan dasar terselenggara dengan efektif), and the creation of
a dynamic educational ecosystem in all locations and at all levels, that is conducive to the effective
provision of education (ekosistem pendidikan di setiap tempat kondusif dan dinamis). IM does not
(yet) have a particular definition of what is meant by “education ecosystem”, but at the minimum
IM’s concept revolves around the active involvement and positive contribution of non-government
actors. A “dynamic and conducive” ecosystem is one which is not dominated solely by the
government; where other actors perform checks and balances on the government provision of
education; where those actors proactively try to improve education (including in light of existing
resource constraints) rather than waiting for the government; and where the government also does
not constrain such initiatives.
IM’s second goal is around leadership. IM is built on a fundamental criticism of current Indonesian
leadership, namely that leaders typically come from the economic and political elite and have
perceptions that Jakarta or Java-centric. This means that they frequently do not have a genuine
understanding of conditions in more remote areas and at the grassroots level. This in turn causes
such leaders to make decisions and enact policies that are based on false assumptions and/or
narrow elitist interests, rather than those which are in the best interests of remote areas and
Indonesia as a whole. For this reason, mirroring the terminology of the first goal, the second overall
goal of IM’s existence is so that “Indonesian leaders lead ‘intelligently’” (pemimpin Indonesia
memimpin dengan ‘cerdas’), where “intelligently” means not only based on technocratic
information and theories, but also based on a nuanced view and a sensitive understanding of how
government (and other sectors) can contribute to the equitable development of Indonesia. Based
on this definition of “intelligently”, there is a subsidiary goal that serves as a precondition for
intelligent leadership, namely that Indonesian leaders understand and are sensitive toward the
realities of Indonesia (in all their variety and complexity) all the way down to the grassroots level
(Pemimpin Indonesia memahami dan peka terhadap realitas sampai di tingkat akar rumput).
It is important to note that, although much of IM’s explicit efforts and also its public image is
focused on education, these two goals should be understood to be equal in weight. The separate
but equal nature of IM’s two goals is vital to understanding IM itself, because they not only drive the
identification of IM’s targeted outcomes, but also the formulation of IM’s general strategies for
achieving those outcomes. In many cases strategies are designed to contribute to both goals at the
same time, for example, PMs and local actors are encouraged to identify and implement their own
solutions to local education challenges.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 7
4B. IM’s End of Program Outcomes
IM’s larger goals described above are beyond the “line of accountability” – in other words, the limit
of what changes IM can reasonably be expected to realize among key actors given the time and
resources available. IM’s End of Program Outcomes are below the line of accountability: these are
the “final results” that IM is striving for by the end of a phase, and which reflect IM’s unique
contribution to its broader goals.
This assignment has identified four main outcome areas for IM 1.06
, described as follows:
Related to Education Provision
Outcome Area 1 - education provision in “in service” schools.
In “in service” schools, IM targets three main end of program outcomes:
School principals intentionally and consistently implement school-based management.
Teachers continuously and increasingly implement student-centered learning methods
Parents actively participate in the provision of education in their childrens’ schools and
affectionately support the development of their children
These outcomes contribute to IM’s goal of effective education provision, since they reflect
behavioral change among key actors who are involved in the provision of education at the school
level. They also contribute to IM’s goal of a more conducive and dynamic educational ecosystem,
since the positive changes among key members of the school-level ecosystem in “in service” schools
can act as a powerful example to demonstrate the power of changes in an ecosystem, and motivate
others actors to be more invovled.
Outcome Area 2 - community involvement in “in service” communities and districts.
In “in service” communities and districts, IM targets two main outcomes:
Village and district-level community members participate actively in local education
Village-level community members independently implement education activities in
These outcomes contribute to the goals of effective education provision and more conducive and
dynamic education ecosystems, since the involvement of community members in education is
assumed to increase the overall amount and quality of education provided, to make education less
dependent on the government, and also to encourage key decision-makers at the school and district
level to provide more attention to education.
Outcome Area 3 - the emergence and growth of local initiatives
In terms of local initiatives, success is defined in terms of the existence and actions of penggerak,
who are defined as local level actors (either within the government or from outside the
government) who help to lead the development and implementation of local inititatives.
The formal outcome statement in this outcome area is:
6 As a result of this review, a fifth outcome area is proposed for IM 2.0. This is described in Section 5 below.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 8
Penggerak in each location independently create initiatives and involve volunteers related
This outcome area – including in terms of penggerak, the initiatives they create, and the
volunteers they involve – is essential to the development of “conducive and dynamic ecosystem”
in each location where IM works. As above, local actors and local initiatives are intended to
complement (and, in extreme cases, potentially replace) the role of government in education.
They can also act as a powerful means of inspiring or driving government actors to take action to
improve education provision.
Also, since penggerak have the potential to act in leadership roles in the future, this outcome area
also contributes to IM’s goal of more “intelligent” leaders.
Outcome Area 4 - the development of future leaders.
IM defines potential future leaders as “alumni” of the IM network: PMs, Galuh staff, as well as
penggerak. When IM interacts with these individuals, they are still “potential future leaders.” This
outcome area is dependent upon the fundamental assumption that these individuals will rise to
leadership positions over time.
The formal outcome statement in this outcome area is:
Future leaders continue to contribute in a variety of sectors (not only education) in a way
that demonstrates their grassroots understanding and sensitivity.
Such continued contributions are important for the further development of these individuals’
leadership capabilities (and will therefore encourage their rise to leadership positions), including by
providing opportunities for future leaders to develop and encourage new ideas and to interact with
4C. IM’s “Change Pathways”
A brief summary of IM’s general approach to driving change is presented below; however, it is
also important to note that in many cases PMs are actively encouraged to develop their own
strategies for achieving targeted outcomes based on the specific local context and characteristics
of local stakeholders.
Outcome Area 1 - education provision in the schools where PMs are placed (“in service” schools).
This review identified several change pathways within this outcome area:
PMs’ teaching and extracurricular activities create positive changes in student enthusiasm
and performance. These changes in turn generate attention and motivation for change
among both teachers and parents: teachers are more motivated by improved student
performance, whereas parents are more motivated by increased student enthusiasm.
Motivated principals, teachers, and parents benefit from opportunities to interact with
other likeminded principals, teachers and parents. These interactions create further
motivation for action, stimulate fresh thinking, and build momentum for change.
Motivated principals and teachers take proactive steps to develop their own capacity,
including in response to interactions with other principals and teachers as well as in
response to information, examples, and opportunities provided by PMs.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 9
Parents know more about their children’s education and more actively monitor
developments in their children’s education, including in response to increased openness by
school actors and more frequent interactions with principals, teachers, and other parents.
Note: this review has revealed that the above strategies have been considered largely ineffective in
encouraging change among school principals in matters relating to school-based management. As
discussed in greater detail in Section 5 below, in response to this general finding, IM needs to refine
its strategy in promoting school-based management.
Outcome Area 2 - community involvement in the communities and districts where PMs are
The main “change pathway” within this outcome area is interaction, where:
Motivated community members interact with other education stakeholders at the school,
community, and district level. Like at the school level, interactions create further motivation
for action, stimulate fresh thinking, and help build momentum around community
involvement in education.
Outcome Area 3 - the emergence and growth of local initiatives
This is the outcome area with the most complicated change pathways, since local initiatives develop
over time and are supported by a variety of actors. This review identified several key components of
change in this outcome area:
Pegiat (defined by IM as “activists” from outside “in service” districts that contribute to and
help to manage a variety of IM initatives, for example Kelas Inspirasi and Indonesia
Menyala) support the implementation of IM initiatives at the local level, which also provides
them with the opportunity to interact with and develop relationships with local actors,
including PMs and penggerak.
Ideas for new initiatives emerge from interaction between PMs, pegiat, and penggerak.
Based on their idealism and desire for change, their knowledge of the local context, their
interaction with other actors and their exposure to new ideas from outside, penggerak
develop the motivation and self confidence to develop concepts and operational plans for
new local initiatives.
Penggerak mobilize community members to provide contributions in the form of money, assets,
and and time. Community involvement builds further momentum around the initiatives.
Penggerak convince businesses and professionals to support the initiatives by providing
money, physical assets, human resources, connections, and/or knowledge and skills.
Support from partners builds further momentum around the initiatives and also increases
the motivation and self confidence of the penggerak who are leading them.
Ideas for how to improve existing initiatives emerge over time in response to learning and
reflection about successes and challenges.
Outcome Area 4 - the development of future leaders.
The change pathway for this outcome area is driven by the assumption that previous involvement
within the IM network is a sufficiently strong positive experience for “alumni” (former PMs and
Galuh staff as well as penggerak) such that they will:
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 10
Participate in a variety of IM initiatives, and
Interact and develop relationships with other alumni
This participation and interaction in turn enables and encourages alumni to continue to provide
contributions in line with their own field/context (not only education).
4D. IM’s Influence Activities
Influence activities are the activities undertaken by IM actors to encourage change among the other
external actors that IM interacts with. IM’s key influence activities reflect two different actors: PMs
Key influence activities conducted by PMs include:
Sharing a variety of information with key school, community, and district-level actors.
Teaching, especially using student-centered learning methods.
Providing a positive example for students and education stakeholders, not only in terms of
teaching but also in terms of overcoming challenges.
Developing positive relationships with actors at all levels, not only in terms of working
relationshps but also in terms of personal/emotional connections.
Facilitating positive communication and interaction between various actors.
Supporting penggerak, including in developing their own ambitions, in planning, in
developing self confidence, and in taking proactive action to overcome challenges and
Key influence activities conducted by Galuh include:
Identifying and supporting pegiat.
Providing opportunities for networking and interaction between actors, including among
penggerak from various districts.
Maintaining IM’s alumni network and facilitating interaction among alumni and between
alumni and other actors.
4E. IM’s Foundational Activities and Organizational Practices
Foundational activities and organizational practices are internal activities that are necessary to
support the implementation of influence activities, but which are not primarily intended to
influence external actors or promote change in the environment outside the organization.
Foundational activities tend to be more specific activities that are conducted in certain ways or at
certain times, whereas organizational practices are ongoing general processes that are conducted
by IM as an organization.
The two main foundational activities conducted by Galuh are:
The recruitment, selection, and training of PMs.
Ongoing support and assistance to PMs when they are in the field.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 11
The main organizational practices conducted within IM are:
Fundraising, both from corporate sponsors as well as from individual contributors
Financial management and reporting.
Monitoring and evaluation, which is also considered to include structured reflection.
Public communications, including via the IM website, social media, and traditional media.
Human resource management, especially related to Galuh staff.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 12
5. Key Results of the Performance Reflection
This section presents the results of the reflection on IM’s overall performance, including by
describing areas where IM seems to have demonstrated strong performance, areas where IM’s
performance is uncertain, and areas where it seems that IM’s performance could be improved7
Annex 2 presents the results of the performance reflection in graphic form, based on the overall
program logic for IM as described above.
5A. The Key to Understanding IM: the Concept of ‘Adhocracy’7
Understanding IM and IM’s performance means understanding that IM cannot be easily defined or
described using a conventional understanding of organizational management and organizational
structure, which assumes that authority must be centralized and strategy must be clearly defined.
To borrow a term from the organizational development literature, it is much more appropriateto
understand IM as an “adhocracy”.
The concept of “adhocracy” was originally developed by organizational development expert Henry
Mintzberg as one of five organizational configurations. Mintzberg noted that “of all the [five]
configurations, adhocracy shows the least reverence for the classic principles of management.”
Adhocracies are characterized an “organic structure with little formalization of behavior” and a high
degree of decentralization within the organization. They have a tendency to deploy “specialist”
workers in small teams to accomplish project-oriented work. In an adhocracy, “strategy is not
imposed from above. Rather, it emerges from the stream of ad hoc decisions made for all the
projects. Hence everyone who is involved in the project work – [which] can mean everyone in the
organization – is involved in strategy making.” Additionally, there are blurry lines between who are
who are managers and who are staff, and support staff play a “key role” in supporting the many
individual projects that are the core work of the organization. With the blurred lines of authority
and the many different projects, the organization relies mostly on its individual members “to
coordinate their own work, by communicating informally with one another” across projects and
across units (this is sometimes referred to as “mutual adjustment”); support staff play an important
role in facilitating this communication.
All of these descriptions accurately capturre IM’s ways of working, where PMs (and penggerak) are
largely encouraged to find their own solutions, with some targeted informal assistance but relatively
little formal oversight from Galuh. Communication is largely informal and organic. IM’s general
strategy is only loosely defined, and has evolved over time in response to IM’s emerging experience.
Figure 1 presents IM’s ‘structure’ mapped onto Mintzberg’s conceptualization of an adhocracy.
7 This section is heavily dependent upon Mintzberg (1980), “Structure in 5’s: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization
Design”, Management Science 26 (3), 322-341.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 13
Figure 1: IM as an "Adhocracy" (adapted from Mintzberg)
IM’s adhocratic nature is a key component of IM’s identity, and also a key factor in its success. This
is because adhocracies are best suited to “environments that are both dynamic and complex”, and
which “demand sophisticated innovation.” Based on the results of this review, it would seem that
IM’s “organic” structure and high degree of decentralization are vital to its ability to generate
sophisticated innovations (in the form of creative solutions and local initiatives) in complex, dynamic
and varied local environments – both at the school level and at the district level. It is therefore very
important that attempts to understand IM’s organizational performance and any suggestions for
improvement reflect IM’s adhocratic nature.
5B. Areas of Strong Performance
This review has identified several areas of IM’s program logic where available evidence suggests that
targeted outcomes are being achieved. These are discussed below.
Increased interest, enthusiasm, and momentum around education in IM schools
IM has clearly been effective in building momentum for positive change at both the school and
district levels. This momentum starts in the classroom, from PMs’ interactions with students. The
teachers and parents interviewed in Bima almost universally acknowledged significant changes at
the student level. Parents focused much more on the enthusiasm of their children to attend and
participate more actively in school activities (including after school learning). Teachers
commented on students’ enthusiasm as well as improvements in students’ performance, including
as exhibited in their performance in various competitions (lomba).
In turn, there is a variety of evidence to suggest that because of their observations of changes
among the students taught by PMs, some teachers and parents have begun to change their own
behavior. These changes are also the result of PMs’ positive and encouraging interactions with
other teachers and with parents. One key to this behavioral change is PMs’ ability to provide
examples in terms of (a) the use of student-centered teaching methods, (b) a visible commitment to
promoting positive changes for students, and (c) a willingness and ability to take action to overcome
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 14
problems. A second key is PM’s determination and ability to develop positive relationships with
both teachers and parents. A third key is the nature of certain teachers and parents themselves. Of
course, not all teachers and parents change their behavior in response to PMs presence;
indicatively, those teachers and parents who are more likely to become more active are those who:
Have strong ties to the local community and a personal desire to see it develop.
Acknowledge the importance of education for students’ own future.
Interact directly with students who show a significant increase in enthusiasm and/or
The observations above would seem to validate the positioning of students in IM’s theory of change
as an intermediate outcome. Interactions between PMs (both as teachers and also as energetic
outsiders who care deeply about education) and students act as a strategic entry point for creating
change among other actors in the local education ecosystem who are closest to students, namely
teachers and parents.
The emergence of new local initiatives
In line with IM’s adhocratic nature and focus on encouraging and empowering local actors to solve
their own problems, a wide variety of new initiatives have emerged throughout the IM network.
Some of these, e.g. Kelas Inspirasi, Ruang Berbagi Ilmu, Indonesia Menyala, are national-level
initiatives started by Galuh; many more are local initiatives that have been inspired by the concept
of IM itself (e.g. Tulang Bawang Barat Cerdas, Gerakan Bima Mengajar, and Gerakan Desa Cerdas in
Halmahera Selatan) or that have been started by local actors and PMs in response to interaction
with IM’s national initiatives and/o local needs. Like IM itself, many of these initiatives are explicitly
or implicitly filling gaps left by poor government performance in terms of education delivery or
management: for example, RuBI acts as a surrogate professional development program in an
environment where previous bureaucratic efforts (Pusat Kegiatan Guru and Kelompok Kerja Guru)
have never been particularly effective.
The number and diversity of local initiatives provides a strong indication that IM has found a
successful formula to develop a wide variety of ideas that have the potential to bring about positive
change in education, and also to involve non-government actors in translating these ideas into
action. The enthusiasm and commitment of the many volunteers who have initiated, managed, and
supported the initiatives over time is evidence of IM’s strong performance in motivating and
engaging pegiat at the national level (especially in Jakarta, but also in other cities outside of IM’s “in
service” areas) and penggerak at the local level (in “in service” districts). A major key to IM’s
success is its ability to stimulate new ideas, including by providing space and encouragement for
creativity and by connecting various like-minded actors from different backgrounds who can share
thoughts and experiences. Such opportunities are provided at the national level by events such as
Festival Gerakan Indonesia Mengajar (in 2013) and Forum Kemajuan Pendidikan Daerah (in 2014
and 2015) as well as at the local level, for example in the case of Bima by Forum Keberlanjutan
Pendidikan as well as by RuBI Bima.
8 It is important to emphasize that these are indicative only. It may be worthwhile for IM to further investigate the
characteristics of teachers and parents who are more likely to respond positively to the presence of PMs. The concept
of positive deviance may be useful as a lens for such further investigation.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 15
A second key to this success is IMs’ approach of supporting rather than managing the initiatives,
which “forces” pegiat and penggerak to take ownership of the initiatives themselves instead of
depending IM for support. IM’s can-do optimism is also vital to this approach, since its positive
communication and proactivity encourages pegiat and penggerak to not wait for others (including
the government) to take the lead.
As with change at the school level described above, a third key to success is IM’s ability to identify
and develop relationships with individuals who eventually become pegiat and penggerak. Both
personal interaction with members of the IM network as well as social media engagement are keys
to the development of these relationships. Based on the experience of this review, it would seem
that the majority of pegiat and penggerak share at least three main characteristics:
a strong degree of idealism, as exhibited by their motivation to contribute to the
improvement of education in Indonesia;
a desire for their own learning and self-development; and
at least some degree of critical consciousness (kesadaran kritis) regarding the state of
education in Indonesia, which is manifested in a frustration with the government’s
performance in delivering quality education.
Providing future leaders with formative grassroots experiences
A third area of strong performance for IM is related to its goal of developing future leaders. It is
clear that their year of service leaves a very strong impression on PMs, and one which will continue
to influence them throughout their careers. In this sense, from the perspective of PMs, IM’s slogan
of “a year of teaching, a lifetime of inspiring” (setahun mengajar, seumur hidup menginspirasi) is
perhaps more accurate as “a year of teaching, a lifetime of being inspired” (setahuan mengajar,
seumur hidup terinspirasi). This review found strong indications that alumni remain committed to
the idea of IM and many remain actively engaged with the IM network in a variety of ways: not only
by continuing to be involved with IM and contribute to IM initiatives, but also maintaining informal
communication with other alumni and with PMs and other local actors in the schools, communities,
and districts where they served.
IM’s strong performance as a leadership program seems to be due primarily to the recruitment,
selection, and training process for PMs, as well as the nature of PMs’ experience. In this sense, by
selecting suitable candidates and then preparing and placing them in remote communities, IM does
enough to ensure that Indonesia’s future leaders have a grassroots understanding. Apart from
maintaining an up-to-date database of alumni information, IM does relatively little to actively
manage its alumni network and ensure that alumni remain involved. One open question is the
extent to which IM can more effectively manage or leverage its alumni network, especially as that
network continues to grow over time. This question is especially relevant considering IM ‘alumni’
include not only PMs but also former Galuh staff and also penggerak, remembering that Galuh
officers and penggerak do not go through the same intensive selection, training, and placement
processes as PMs.
5C. Areas of Uncertain Performance
In addition to the areas of strong performance above, this review has identified two significant areas
of uncertain performance.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 16
Sustainability of changes
The first major area of uncertain performance is around the sustainability of changes encouraged by
IM at the local level even after IM no longer has a physical presence in a particular district. Several
of IM’s targeted outcomes imply sustained change: principals “consistently” implementing School-
based Management, teachers “continuously and increasingly” applying student-centered learning
techniques, village-level community members and penggerak “independently” implementing
activities and creating initiatives and involving volunteers. A major question – as yet unanswered –
is whether the behavioral change IM has successfully created among key actors at the school,
community and district levels will remain sustained over the longer term in the absence of direct
encouragement and support by PMs. The behavioral change in question includes whether key local
champions (penggerak or others) will continue to actively promote change. These questions are
especially relevant in districts such as Bima where the local education ecosystem is not yet
conducive, in the sense that the local government management practices (or other factors) largely
inhibit rather than encourage change.
A second set of questions around sustainability is related to the local initiatives that have emerged
over time due to IM’s presence in a given district, including: whether the initiatives will be able to
obtain the resources (not only financial, but also human and technological) necessary to function
effectively over time, whether the initiatives will be able to maintain their independence from local
governments or other vested interests, and whether the initiatives will be able to adapt over time in
response to changes in their environment and – possibly more importantly – in response to learning
about what works and what does not.
These are natural questions at this point in IM’s development, since IM has only recently withdrawn
(in December 2015) from the initial set of districts that were considered to be sufficiently successful
after five years, and will withdraw from several more districts (including Bima) in June 2016. They
also point to an emerging priority for IM, namely: how to effectively provide and/or facilitate long-
distance support for local actors and initiatives that are not yet capable of functioning
independently. Although the need for such support has been acknowledged in IM’s new
organizational structure, this area of support is new for IM, and the organization’s performance will
only become visible as such support is implemented. However, IM’s performance in this area will be
a critical determinant of the extent to which IM succeeds in contributing to longer term changes in
local education. As an illustrative example of the significance of IM’s performance in this area, the
nine PMs in Bima all agreed that IM could “leave” Bima in 2016, as long as Galuh continues to
provide the necessary remote support from afar.
IM’s contributions to positive changes in learning outcomes.
There is very little evidence regarding the extent to which the increased enthusiasm around and
attention to education generated by IM has resulted or will result in the achievement of the
organization’s ultimate goals, namely “more effective education provision” and a “more intelligent
nation.” The evidence which this review did encounter regarding student learning was only
anecdotal in nature and focused on the performance of individual students. As acknowledged by
IM’s leadership, the extent of PMs’ and local initiatives’ contributions to positive changes in learning
outcomes remains largely an unanswered question.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 17
5D. Areas of Potential Improvement
Based on the findings described above, the review has identified several areas of IM’s performance
which offer potential opportunities for improvement moving forward 9
. These ‘areas of potential
improvement’ can be classified into two main categories: first, areas related to IM’s strategies for
influencing larger change, and secondly, areas related to how IM functions internally. Areas of
potential improvement related to both of these categories are discussed in greater detail below.
Areas of Potential Improvement : Strategies for Influencing Larger Change
The review has identified three main areas where IM could potentially work more effectively to
drive significant change in terms of ‘a conducive and dynamic ecosystem at all levels’ and ‘the
effective provision of primary education.’ For each of these three areas, IM may need to reconsider,
refine, and/or clarify its program logic and strategies. High-level suggestions are provided.
1. Focusing on the goal of improved learning outcomes.
As described above, IM is clearly succeeding in generating enthusiasm, introducing and encouraging
new ideas, and increasing community and volunteer participation around education. However, the
extent to which these positive changes are contributing (or will contribute at some future date) to
the goal-level outcome of positive changes in the ability of primary school children to read, write,
count and think better remains an untested assumption. There is a risk (acknowledged indirectly by
IM leadership) that if all of the positive energy is not channeled toward a specific goal, a significant
portion of that energy will be wasted, or will remain as ‘euphoria’ without actually contributing to
meaningful change. This is especially true given the decentralized nature of IM’s interventions.
The goal that unites and focuses IM and its partners is – or at least could be – learning outcomes.
While IM’s stated visions mention problems with education (masalah pendidikan) and ‘educating
the nation’ (mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa), these are left open to broad interpretation. A
fundamental and concrete problem with primary education in Indonesia is that learning outcomes in
terms of reading, counting and writing (baca tulis hitung, or calistung) and creative/critical thinking
remain significantly lower than hoped. Almost all IM actors and partners are aware of these issues,
but IM does not yet seem to have a common language about learning outcomes, or a way to assess
the strategic value of initiatives in terms of their potential to overcome problems with learning
outcomes. Collecting data and/or introducing simple ways to measure to learning outcomes could
be one way to raise a focus on IM’s larger goals.
This is not to say that the success of IM should necessarily be measured in terms of whether
learning outcomes increase. As described in Section 4 above, “the effective provision of
education” and “an intelligent nation” are above the “line of accountability”, meaning IM only
needs to demonstrate a contribution to learning outcomes. An increased focus on or discourse
around key learning outcomes (and related problems) could be one highly strategic contribution,
especially given IM’s role in convening a larger movement.
Each of these areas for improvement have been mentioned by at least two different actors or actor groups
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 18
Suggestion for Program Logic Revision:
IM should consider if and how learning outcomes should be explicitly incorporated into End-
of-Program or Intermediate Outcomes, for example related to increased awareness of
and/or more active discourse around learning outcomes.
IM should then consider strategic activities to achieve the proposed outcomes.
2. Clarifying what is meant by a “dynamic and conducive” education ecosystem, and
considering how to encourage and support interventions to drive positive change in
local education governance.
To date, within its intentional design IM has formally positioned local governments as a strategic
partner (mitra strategis) that can help contribute to desired changes, rather than as a boundary
partner (mitra langsung) whose behavior is a target for change. Local governments are positioned
as institutional actors; individual actors within the government are considered to be penggerak;
positive changes within systems for local education provision or governance are considered to be
part of the local education ecosystem (goal level change). Furthermore, IM’s natural optimism, its
commitment to being non-partisan and non-political, and its belief in identifying and encouraging
local penggerak all contribute to a hesitancy (both among PMs and among Galuh) to use its leverage
(pasang badan) to openly criticize deeply flawed systems, or to ‘think and work politically’10
review has uncovered very little information to support the fact that IM has focused on – let alone
made meaningful contributions to – more systemic problems related to education provision in the
districts where it works. These include – but are certainly not limited to – endemic corruption of
funds intended to benefit schools and students, a lack of support and oversight for principals and
teachers, and fundamental problems with human resource management including the politicization of
the education bureaucracy and a lack of focus on basic competencies for teachers and principals11
However, the experience of IM’s work in Bima to date (and, presumably, in many other districts)
demonstrates the dominant role of the local government within the education ecosystem, and
the fact that many of the root causes of problems in education at the school level are in fact
problems with district-level management and oversight of education. Without working to
addressing these more fundamental problems, there are significant risks that IM’s school-level
interventions may not produce lasting change, or that IM-supported interventions may be
coopted by the local government.
IM’s ‘underperformance’ in terms of systems-level changes can be expressed in terms of two basic
issues: first, IM does not yet have a robust or commonly understood concept of what a ‘dynamic
and conducive education ecosystem’ is, including the role of the government within that
ecosystem. Secondly, to date IM has not explicitly targeted positive changes among key actors
involved with the management and oversight of local education systems. As mentioned above, all
district-level actors (including those within the government) are considered penggerak; there has
been no consideration that local education authorities (e.g. Bupati, Kepala Dinas, Sekretaris Dinas,
etc) are a special class of powerful actor with their own specific interests and for whom a specific
strategy for influence is required.
10 For a collection of information on ‘thinking and working politically’ in the context of development, see:
11 Of course, these are sensitive issues. One PM who raised such issues in a blog post was ‘scolded’ by the district
government for doing so.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 19
As with the focus on learning outcomes, this is not to say that IM should define its success in terms
of its ability to change local education systems; however, to ensure change that is more strategic
and more positive over the longer-term, IM may need to contribute to local awareness or discourse
around systemic problems and/or target changes in attitude or behavior among key decision-makers
who have some influence over those problems.
Suggestions for Program Logic Revision:
IM should define or develop a more robust concept for what a “conducive and dynamic
education ecosystem” is at the school and district level.
IM should consider the addition of an End-of-Program Outcome that targets change in
attitude or behavior among key local education authorities related to structural
problems with education systems, and considers strategies to influence local education
authorities to achieve the proposed outcomes.
3. Promoting the intentional and consistent implementation of school-based
The area of IM’s program logic which was almost universally acknowledged as an area of
underperformance was that related to school principals and the implementation of school-based
management at the school level. This review uncovered no evidence that IM has had any significant
impact on school-based management or on school principal behavior, despite principals being listed
as one of IM’s ‘boundary partners’ in the intentional design document12
. There is reason to believe
that the case observed in SDN Tambora in Bima – where the principal was said to have attended the
school approximately once every two months, and where there are indications of misuse of BOS and
BSM funds – is far from isolated, and that many partner schools still suffer from a lack of attendance
by school principals, the marginal involvement of school committees in school oversight, a lack of
financial transparency, and the misuse of desperately needed funds. The risks in such schools are
also the same as in SDN Tambora: even where teachers, parents, and community members have
been ‘activated’, without a genuine changes in school management, the demand for change may
change to resignation and complacency over time.
IM’s experience over its initial five years shows that the same strategy which has largely succeeded
in influencing teacher behavior (providing information and examples, connecting like-minded
teachers, providing opportunities for self-development) is not well suited for school principals.
Different interventions seem to be needed to influence school principals to implement school based
management; these could include more bottom-up approaches to create space for the community
to exert pressure on school principals, or more top-down approaches where the district or sub-
district education offices provide both pressure and support. Alternatively, IM could explicitly
consider the potential for improvements in school-based management in its criteria for selecting
schools, and/or could also exert pressure by threatening to withdraw from schools where there are
no significant improvements in management.
Suggestion for Program Logic Revision:
IM should redefine the Intermediate Outcomes and Influence Activities related to ensuring
that school principals intentionally and consistently implement school-based management
It is worth noting that principals were actually not considered a boundary partner in the initial version of IM’s
intentional design, and were only added in year 2 of IM implementation based on input from the first batch of PM.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 20
so that they are in line with an improved strategy for promoting school-based management.
School committee members, parents and community leaders, and district education officers
should be considered as boundary partners who can encourage school principals to
implement school-based management.
Alternatively, rather than targeting school principals, IM could target a more active school
committee as a mechanism for ensuring community voice and oversight over education.
Areas of Potential Improvement: Internal Organizational Behavior
In addition to the three areas of improvement related to IM’s program logic above, this review has
also identified several areas where IM can improve in terms of its own internal organizational
behavior (‘foundational activities’ and ‘organizational practices’, in the language used in developing
IM’s Program Logic). These are discussed below.
1. Development of and ongoing support for PMs, especially in terms of their ability to
‘think systemically and work politically’
As shown in the program logic of IM as well as by the experience of IM in Bima, PMs play two
important roles: first, as a Pengajar Muda with a focus on teaching, and secondly, as a “Penggerak
Muda”, with a focus on identifying, activating and mobilizing local actors (both at the village and
district level) to more actively participate in education. The balance between these two roles shifts
over the five-year period that IM places PMs in a district: PMs are initially focused much more on
teaching-type activities, and then gradually become more involved in engaging local actors as they
gain trust and build relationships, and as local initiatives begin to emerge. As demonstrated by the
experience of Bima and already discussed above, a key determinant of IMs longer-term contribution
to “a more conducive and dynamic education ecosystem” is the ability of both Galuh and especially
PMs to ‘think systemically and work politically.’ For the purposes of this review, these two key
concepts are defined as follows:
‘thinking systemically’ involves identifying the structures (including in terms of power
relations and incentives) that create or contribute to complex problems, and also
acknowledging that the “obvious solutions” may not be the ones that are best suited to
bring about significant change. This means seeing change as a process rather than a one-
time occurrence, and seeing the existence of more complex interrelationships rather than
linear cause-effect chains13
‘working politically’ involves acknowledging and understanding the interests and incentives
of various actors, and the political realities that those interests and incentives create. This
means identifying and partnering with actors that have the capacity to work creatively and
flexibly to solve problems, and brokering constructive relations among key actors to
discover shared interests and ways of overcoming resistance to change14
Although IM has recently begun to consider ‘high-level engagement’ as a key competency for PMs,
the training for PMs is still predominantly focused on their role as Pengajar Muda. The main skills
developed during training are teaching, facilitation, and coaching; there is comparatively little
13 This concept of ‘thinking systemically’ is adapted from: Senge, Peter (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of
the Learning Organization, p. 68-73.
14 Adapted from http://www.gsdrc.org/professional-dev/thinking-and-working-politically/
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 21
emphasis on helping PMs to better understand the systemic nature of certain problems, or how to
work within local education and political systems15
The need for training that is more focused on the roles of a Penggerak Muda was explicitly expressed
by the Bima PMs. In retrospect, they felt there was room to improve training and support by:
Adding topics during training and/or providing supplemental materials, including related to
school-based management, relevant policies, persuasion and advocacy, building positive
relationships, and developing and strengthening the capacity of penggerak.
Having a more honest and open handover from the previous group of PMs about challenges
and opportunities, including related to a mapping of local actors and approaches that had
either been tried and not been successful or that had not yet been tried but could
potentially produce a breakthrough.
Receiving support from Galuh that is more responsive to PMs immediate needs, and
that differentiates between the needs of PMs, e.g. when they (a) would benefit from
coaching that encourages them to develop their own solutions; (b) need more active
assistance; or, (c) simply need encouragement or approval to proceed with a plan they
have already developed.
Of course, the need for improved training and support to PMs also implies the potential for
improvement among those providing training and support to PMs. The Galuh officers who provide
support to PMs also have relatively little exposure ‘thinking systemically’ and ‘working politically’,
and are therefore not necessarily in a strong position to provide assistance to PMs as needed. This
is discussed further below.
2. Profiling, selection, and development of Officers and Managers for Galuh
A key component of success for adhocracies is the competency of “support staff” (i.e. those groups
that provide indirect support to the rest of the organization) to function independently and
collaborate effectively. In the case of IM, the “support staff” can be interpreted to include both Galuh
Managers and Officers.
Galuh Managers support the organization by translating its general strategic vision into more
concrete plans within specific contexts, compiling emerging experience as input for revising
strategies, and providing support and guidance in a way that encourages flexibility and creativity.
Galuh Officers provide support to both PMs and local initiatives, including by facilitating
communication between Galuh, PMs, and local actors.
Both Galuh Managers and Officers must have a strong ability to understand the many different
contexts in which IM is working, to help to identify what needs to happen, and then to help make it
15 Interestingly, the heavy focus on behavior change at the individual level and the use of IM’s Intentional Design as the
basis for explaining what PMs are supposed to do may actually serve to create difficulties for PM’s in creating change
by “fixing” systems rather than “fixing” people. See Lant Pritchett’s commentary in “The Rebirth of Education”
regarding (2013) the importance – and difficulties – of understanding education systems: “Systems explanations have
just no appeal to people, myself included. Agent-centered explanations are powerfully appealing to us, on a very deep
level. Believe me, if your child says, ‘Daddy, tell me a story,’ you can be sure he or she wants a story with agents,
heroes and villains who have goals and make plans and overcome obstacles. The appeal of agent-centered, human
narrative explanations over systemic explanations is why [very few people are interested in systemic challenges in
education’]. This is because nearly all of our success as organisms is driven by understanding stuff and agents… the
number of times any of us needs to understand systems is vanishingly small.” (p 142).
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 22
happen. Given IM’s decentralized and adhocratic nature, all of this must happen without intensive
direction from IM’s senior management. Although IM has devoted significant attention to the
selection and development of PMs, it has not yet devoted the same degree of attention to the
selection and development of Galuh Officers and Managers. Given the strategic nature of Galuh
in shaping and encouraging the larger IM movement, this should be considered an area of
This review identified at least two more specific areas of potential improvement in terms of the
profiling, selection, and development of Galuh Officers and Managers. First, there is a need to
rethink the “success profile” of Galuh staff, both in terms of their core competencies and in terms of
fit with the decentralized, adhocratic nature of IM. As an example, Galuh Officers and Managers
should be flexible, have strong initiative, and be comfortable with frequent change and high degrees
of uncertainty. Managers also need to have a managerial style that is well-suited to managing
complexity, in other words not too top-down or bureaucratic. Secondly, during the course of this
review, several participants expressed the opinion that previous versions of the IM Officer
Development Program had not been very particularly effective in developing the necessary skillsets
of Officers, or in improving their managerial ability. With a more clearly defined success profile, IM
should be able to leverage on its experience in training PMs (or on the experience of individuals in
its network and/or other organizations) to develop a stronger development program for both
Officers and Managers.
3. Knowledge Management and Intermediation
IM is undoubtedly an organization that actively learns and applies that learning: reflection processes
are encouraged for key activities, and IM actors and volunteers at all levels are enabled and
encouraged to innovate and improve based on emerging experience.
However, much of the rich knowledge that IM has accumulated through experience remains
tacit, in other words ‘in the heads’ of individual IM actors. There does not yet seem to be a
culture of documenting key lessons learned for future use or use in other contexts. As one
indicative example, Galuh Officers are aware of the ‘stories’ of interesting local initiatives such
as Tulang Bawang Barat Cerdas but have no written information to share with other interested
parties (the Story of Change for Gerakan Bima Mengajar contained in Annex 3 is intended as an
example of such documentation which may be useful). Another example is the fact that the
current PMs in Bima received no written handover notes from their predecessors, and in fact
the entire handover process was left to the PMs in each district to design and implement16
The organizational habit of not documenting experiences and lessons learned is compounded by
IM’s organizational positivity, which seems to create a barrier to documenting negative experiences,
even as a basis for internal learning and improvement. There are strong indications of an
organizational culture that “shelters” new PMs from information about the potentially harsh
realities of working in local environments, and that this “sheltering” occurs both at the time of
training and at the time of the handover from previous PMs. Instead of receiving a full briefing, PMs
are allowed to “find out for themselves.” Galuh Officers also commented that challenges and
difficulties of working with local governments – while widely known – are rarely documented. In the
16 It is worth noting that the PMs in Bima felt that the handover they received was generally helpful, especially in
comparison with the experience of their fellow PMs in other districts who received relatively little useful information,
and therefore potentially useful as a model for the future.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 23
context of a discussion how to collect and compile information about change processes at the local
level, one officer explicitly stated “we are too positive.”
These issues related to knowledge management create a problem when there is staff turnover in
Galuh: when Managers or Officers leave they take their understanding of the organization with
them, and are replaced by new staff who have very little understanding of the culture and history of
IM, and also relatively little documentation to learn from. This lack of ‘organizational memory’ is
acutely felt at the present time, when several Managers who have been involved since the
beginning of the organization have left or will soon leave. The issues around knowledge
management can also create inefficiencies at the local level. For example PMs from Bima felt that
they wasted valuable time ‘fumbling around’ (meraba-raba) because their predecessors had not
informed them of certain issues. Additionally, the lack of readily available explicit knowledge
potentially restricts the ability of local initiatives to learn from one another.
The potential for IM to improve its overall organizational performance not only relates to the
management of its own internal knowledge, but the management and intermediation of relevant
. One of the main strategies of IM is to introduce new ideas from “outside” an
education ecosystem and to generate interest and positive momentum around those ideas. Actors
across the board in Bima mentioned this as a positive contribution of IM’s presence; the teachers
involved in the Karumbu Bersinar and RuBI Bima initiatives also explicitly mentioned “access to
information” as an area where future support is still needed from IM. Furthermore, PMs suggested
that their formal training could be enhanced by merely providing access to additional literature
(bahan pengayaan) on a variety of topics; this would seem to also apply to the development of
However, various interactions during this review gave the general perception that IM’s “body of
knowledge” is based mainly on its own experience and the experience of its broader network. This
is partially justified by IM’s philosophy of developing local solutions and the desire to avoid a “copy-
paste” approach; however, some individuals within the organization perceive a general skepticism
toward external concepts.
Given (a) IM’s strategic role in introducing fresh ideas, (b) the large volume of readily available and
highly relevant concepts and ideas related to education (in terms of both pedagogy and education
management) and community mobilization (in terms of network building, social movements,
oversight and accountability, etc) and (c) the strong interest from IM’s boundary partners for such
new ideas, it would seem there is huge value in IM acknowledging and enhancing its role as a
knowledge intermediary. By supplying PMs and penggerak (and also Galuh Officers and others) with
relevant knowledge, the entire IM movement could be equipped with potentially valuable
ammunition to drive positive change.
4. Strategic Evaluation and Reflection
During the course of this review, IM’s leadership expressed a genuine curiosity about questions
related to the appropriateness and effectiveness of IM’s strategy in reaching its targeted outcomes.
17 For the purposes of this review, knowledge intermediation is defined as the role of “linking” knowledge producers and
knowledge consumers, including by: identifying knowledge that is relevant for potential users; “repackaging”
knowledge so that it is more accessible to potential users; disseminating knowledge to potential users; and facilitating
communication between knowledge producers and potential users.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 24
IM’s monitoring and evaluation efforts are predominantly at the operational level: related to the
behavioral changes targeted in its ‘intentional design’, specific activities (for example, training), and
for specific programmatic needs (for example, a general analysis of the sustainability of change as
the basis for determining whether or districts should be considered as having “graduated” from IM).
However, there is little to no strategic evaluation. As stated by the former director, this assignment
is the first time that IM has formally attempted to compare its overall program logic to what is
actually happening on the ground, especially at the outcome level. Furthermore, to date there has
been very little documentation of (a) the process of developing and implementing key initiatives or
(b) the results of those key initiatives.
The lack of strategic evaluation has been influenced by several key challenges. First, the nature of
IM means that information is significantly dispersed within the organization. It also means that the
way in which IM defines and operationalizes its overall strategy constantly evolving. Second, there
is limited internal capacity to conduct monitoring and evaluation, especially at a strategic level and
in light of IM’s emerging strategy. Third, until now IM has not had an explicitly defined theory of
change, which means there has not been a clear basis for evaluation.
5. Improving Alignment by Communicating “What is Indonesia Mengajar”
Over the course of this review, many different people expressed questions and even fundamental
misunderstandings about what IM is doing and what it is attempting to accomplish. In general,
there seems to be a perception among the general public (outside the IM network) and even among
many applicants for PM positions that IM is purely about filling the gaps in qualified teachers in the
more remote regions in Indonesia. There is little awareness of IM’s goals of creating a more
conducive and dynamic education ecosystem in those regions, or of creating a generation of leaders
who are more sensitive to the needs of those regions18
. Additionally, at least some representatives
from the local government in Bima referred to PMs as “representatives” from the Ministry of
Education and Culture, presumably due to IM’s affiliation with Anies Baswedan. Finally, and
perhaps most interestingly, some alumni have also expressed questions about IM’s current strategy,
especially whether it is shifting away from placing PMs as teachers in schools to promoting various
local and national initiatives such as Kelas Inspirasi and RuBI.
These questions are natural in light of IM’s nature as an adhocracy: information is not centralized,
residing instead with the “teams” that are operating in each local context. As a young organization,
IM’s strategy – and even identity – continues to evolve as it learns iteratively about what is effective
and what is not.
However, these questions also indicate the potential for improvement in how IM communicates its
overall goals and encourages alignment with those goals across the diverse groups of actors that
exist within the IM movement. Alignment requires both the existence of clear, unifying goals (as
discussed in the section on learning outcomes above) and the effective communication of those
goals. If individuals understand IM, they can choose to participate in a way that channels their
energy toward the achievement of IM’s overall goals; empowering individuals and encouraging
18 To a certain extent, this misunderstanding is caused by communication from IM itself. For example, the FAQ section of
the IM website states that the goal of IM is to “fill the gap of quality education professionals in Indonesia’s regions that
exists today, and prepare young leadership candidates who possess grassroots knowledge about Indonesia’s regions”
(tujuannya adalah mengisi kekurangan tenaga pengajar berkualitas di daerah di Indonesia hari ini, dan menyiapkan
calon-calon pemimpin muda Indonesia yang memiliki pengetahuan grass-root tentang daerah di Indonesia)
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 25
common learning will strengthen the entire movement. However, if individuals are not sufficiently
aligned with IM (for example, because they are not sure of what those goals are or the overall
strategy to achieve them), a significant amount of energy is wasted, including in managing the
“chaos” that comes from many different individuals working in many different directions.
Figure 2: Varying Degrees of Alignment
Adapted from Senge, Peter (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, p. 217-8.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 26
6. Potential Lessons Learned from Other Organizations
The areas of potential improvement described above can be considered a guide to identifying other
relevant organizations which could potentially serve as a source of learning for IM. Highly relevant
organizations are those that:
• Are working to focus attention on learning outcomes.
• Are organizing communities to address systemic problems, including by working politically
(but in a positive, non-partisan way).
• Are working to promote school-based management.
• Are providing development and support to community organizers.
• Are running effective officer and manager development programs.
• Are effectively managing knowledge and making internal and external knowledge available
and accessible to potential users.
• Are conducting useful, strategic evaluations of their own work.
However, it is also important to note that for many of the points above, organizations with a similar
adhocratic nature will be most relevant for IM. Lessons from organizations with a significantly
different nature and especially a different organizational configuration may be of limited relevance
examples to IM.
In terms of collecting additional suggestions about other organizations which could serve as sources
of learning, after consultation with IM and with DFAT, SOILIDARITAS prepared an online
questionnaire to “crowd-source” information about high-performing organizations from education
professionals, civil society activists, and development practitioners. Eighteeen responses were
received over a 10 day period, resulting in the identification of the following organizations as
potential sources of learning for IM:
Related to the measurement of learning outcomes: SMERU
Related to learning-outcome focused education provision in general: Taman Bacaan
Pelangi, Qoryah Thayyibah Salatiga, ProVisi Education, Yasumat Wamena, Yayasan Literasi
Related to School–Based Management: World Education, Prioritas, LPKIPI Jawa Timur, Plan
Related to community mobilization to address systemic problems: ICW, YAPPIKA, Seknas
Fitra, LPKP Jawa Timur, PATTIRO
Related to providing development and support to community organizers: MAMPU, CIRCLE
Indonesia, Yayasan Satu Nama, IRE, Mitra Samya
Related to Officer/Manager Development Programs: MDF, CIRCLE Indonesia, Yayasan Satu
Nama, Wahana Visi Indonesia
Related to Knowledge Management: Satu Dunia
Related to internal evaluations: ICW, Plan International Indonesia
A more detailed summary of the results of the information obtained through the online
questionnaire is provided in Annex 4.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 27
In addition to the crowd-sourced list of organizations, this review has identified two relevant
organizations which could act as a significant source of learning for IM.
Pratham (www.pratham.org) is one of
the largest NGOs in India, which
focuses on “high-quality, low-cost,
replicable interventions” intended to
improve the quality of education in
India. It is a self-described “innovative
learning organization” which was
founded in 1995 around a single
model (the Balwadi pre-school
program) which was then adopted in
several regions across India. Pratham
has subsequently developed several
new interventions related to improving education delivery, for example through remedial tutoring,
unique teaching methods, and the use of IT. In implementing these various programs, Pratham
works with a variety of partners, including the Indian government, local communities, parents,
teachers, volunteers, and civil society members. Interestingly for IM, Pratham has also worked with
international academics to conduct rigorous evaluations of various programs, which over time has
contributed to a robust body of evidence about what has been effective in improving education.
These evaluations have also contributed to Pratham’s reputation for innovation, quality, and
research. Additionally, as a response to a realization that there was insufficient understanding
about the severity of illiteracy in India, in 2005 Pratham began to produce its “Annual Status of
Education Report” (ASER) as a way of focusing attention on important problems. It also established
a research and evaluation unit (the ASER Centre) to manage the ASER surveys, which are
implemented annually across India through a network of hundreds of partner organizations and
thousands of volunteers.
Given the high-level similarities of the two organizations, this review suggests the initiation of
communication between Pratham and IM to further explore similarities and potential opportunities
for collaboration. If these seem potentially fruitful, it may be strategic for DFAT (or other
organizations interested in supporting IM) to facilitate further communication.
Kinerja (www.kinerja.or.id) is a USAID-funded project focusing on the governance aspects of public
service delivery in the health and education sectors, both from the supply side (i.e., government)
and the demand side (i.e., service users and communities). Kinerja has developed an innovative
approach to involving parents, students, and other stakeholders in school management. Given IM’s
difficulties in promoting change among school principals and related to school-based management,
the Kinerja approach may be interesting to explore, since it involves creating a more structured
“space” for communication and oversight by a wider range of stakeholders.
“ASER has demonstrated that it is possible to use
simple, reliable, and scientific methods of sampling
and assessment on a large scale for high impact at a
low cost. It has also been an excellent example of
building local participation at a national level and has
allowed ordinary citizens to understand the current
status of elementary education. However, it is most
significant for defining a qualitative educational
agenda and is widely used in government and policy
circles both inside and outside of India.”
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 28
The Kinerja approach essentially involves the following steps:
Compiling data (in the form of a “complaint survey”) from parents, teachers, and students
about their perceptions of problems in the school.
Conducting a forum where the principal, school committee, parents, teachers, and
community members can openly discuss the results of the “complaint survey”.
Comparing school data to national minimum service standards.
Using the complaint survey and discussion results as the basis for agreeing a “service charter”
about what will be changed in the school, and also providing “technical recommendations” to
the district education office about problems outside the school’s reach.
Using the “service charter” and national minimum service standards as a basis for
developing school plans and budgets, which are then shared with all stakeholders in a
Facilitating regular and transparent monitoring of the implementation of the “service
charter”, including by school committee, parents, teachers, and community members.
Given the high potential relevance of this approach to IM, SOLIDARITAS facilitated a sharing
discussion between the KINERJA team and IM, the notes from which are presented in Annex 5 (in
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 29
7. Items for Consideration
Based on the Areas of Potential Improvement and Potential Lessons Learned from Other Relevant
Organizations described above, 10 “items for consideration” are presented below.
1. Identify simple but reliable assessments of learning outcomes into IM’s interventions
at the school and/or district level.
To help focus on the ultimate goal of learning outcomes, IM should attempt to accurately measure
them, and then use the resulting data to focus attention, rally community support, and track change
over time. Pratham’s experience has shown that it is possible to use scientific methods of
measurement and evaluation on a large scale at relatively low cost. The Pratham experience has also
shown that such measurement can be an effective way of encouraging local participation in education,
as well as in drawing the government’s attention to problems. In addition to the various tools
developed and used by Pratham, other tools are already available in Indonesia: e.g., an Early Grade
Reading Assessment (EGRA) has been developed and used by the USAID-funded PRIORITAS program19
Collecting and publicizing data on learning outcomes also has the added benefit that local
government’s responses to such data (either acceptance and concern, or distrust and resistance) will
provide a strong indicator of their commitment to meaningful education change.
2. Define “Progress Markers” in relation to the projected 5-year “lifecycle” of change at
both the school and district level.
In defining its “progress markers”, which serve as a key reference point for both PMs and Galuh
regarding the change to which PMs are expected to contribute, IM should refer not only to expected
change, but to the process of expected change as it will occur over time. This includes explicitly
acknowledging that there is a shift in focus in the role of PMs over time. This transition occurs from
the school level to the district level (PMs initially focus at the school level and gradually shift
attention to the district level as local initiatives emerge and develop), and from the PMs role as a
Pengajar Muda to a Penggerak Muda (with PMs initially focused more on teaching and then
increasingly on community organizing). This transition is expressed indicatively in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Changing Role of PMs Over Time
19 For more information on EGRA in Indonesia, see:
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 30
Since progress markers are used by IM as a reference point for assessing progress, defining progress
markers more explicitly in terms of time would also enable IM to track the pace of change in a given
school or district in a more structured way. This may be of use to IM in its attempts to determine
whether districts will “graduate” on time (i.e., after five years); in cases where change is slower than
expected, IM may need to consider extending the period of support and/or providing additional
support, for example by placing one or more PMs at the district level in year 5 or year 6. In cases of
extremely slow or non-existent change, it may also provide the justification for IM to pressure the
school and/or district, or even to (threaten to) withdraw from the school and/or district in order to
channel resources to other locations where they might be more effective in driving change.
3. Adopt a more structured approach to improving school management.
IM should incorporate key ideas from the Kinerja approach (or other approaches) to actively create a
“communication space” in which the school principal, school committee, and parents/community
members can discuss problems, agree on actions, and monitor progress. This may include a more
structured process to:
Reestablish or revitalize the school committee.
Compile complaints and suggestions from students, parents, community members, and
teachers in a transparent manner.
Bring the complaint and suggestion data to an open forum for discussion.
Agree on improvements and a participatory monitoring mechanism, and document the
agreement in a service charter (key concepts from minimum service standards can be
introduced as relevant).
Use the service charter as a basis for school planning and budgeting (key concepts from
minimum service standards can be referred to as relevant).
Promote transparency by making plans and budgets readily available to community
Alternatively, IM could shift its focus from the school principal (who in many cases may be likely to be
highly resistant to change) to the school committee (since the school committee may be easier for
PMs to work with and influence), for example by targeting the revitalization of the school committee
and/or increasing its role in management and oversight of key school affairs.
In either case, IM will need to better equip PMs with an understanding of what is school-based
management, and how they can potentially encourage positive change. IM should also be upfront
with both schools and districts about its expectations regarding changes in the management of
schools where PMs are placed, for example by formalizing an ageement with the district and/or
school. Where schools demonstrate no improvement on criteria that have been clearly defined and
agreed in advance (e.g., principal attendance, BOS transparency), IM should call attention to the
ongoing issues, actively promote alternative solutions, and even – in extreme cases – consider
withdrawing from the school.
4. Establish an internal evaluation and reflection unit
Learning from Pratham, which established a research and evaluation unit in 2005 (10 years after the
organization was established), IM should consider how the key learning functions of strategic
evaluation and reflection should be handled within IM.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 31
One possibility is to establish an internal unit which could provide targeted support related to:
The implementation and/or management of strategic evaluation work, including the use of
assessments of learning outcomes.
The ongoing development and review of IM’s program logic and/or the program logic for
specific initiatives, including as a basis for evaluation.
The packaging and communication of evaluation findings, including as part of IM’s
contribution to the discourse around educational performance and education evaluation in
The facilitation of active learning and reflection processes for both IM and local initiatives, for
example by encouraging the use of techniques such as the RAPID Outcome Assessment (ROA)
used as part of this review to better understand the emergence of Gerakan Bima Mengajar20
IM could also develop a network of external (Indonesian and international) researchers who
could conduct or contribute to strategic evaluations or other forms of applied research around
As demonstrated by the case of Pratham, these two options are not mutually exclusive. An internal
research and evaluation unit could coordinate evaluations and manage relationships with
researchers, who could perform the majority of technical work.
5. Expand the Concept of Training and Support for PMs
As described above, in order to more effectively play the role of Penggerak Muda, PMs need to be
able to ‘think systemically and work politically’. Thus there is a need to expand the training for PMs
beyond pedagogy, facilitation, and coaching. During PM training, IM should introduce:
Basic concepts from the emerging institutional reform literature around “iterative adaption”,
including the concept of “root causes of problems”, “positive deviance”, and “enabling (or
authorizing) environment” 21
Basic facilitation tools for analyzing problems in a group setting, for example the “Five Why’s”
and the Fishbone (or Izikawa) Diagram.
Basic tools for planning for strategic stakeholder engagement and advocacy, for example
Force Field Analysis and Awareness and Interest Mapping22
Additionally, given the limited time available for PM training, IM should also work to compile a set of
additional reference materials (bahan pengayaan) on a variety of topics, which can be made available
to PMs (and other actors, including penggerak) online. Material could cover key literature and
concepts related to the following topics:
School management (including financial management)
Relevant education policies
Indonesian government systems, including information on government structures and processes
20 See Annex 6 for notes and reflections on the ROA process conducted in Bima (in Bahasa Indonesia).
21 Key references for these can include: Andrews, Pritchett, and Woolcock (2012), Escaping Capability Traps through
Iterative Adaptation, and Pritchett (2013), The Rebirth of Education: Schooling Ain’t Learning. There are also online
courses on “Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation” available through buildingstatecapability.com.
22 See ROMA: a guide to policy engagement and influence, available at www.roma.odi.org.
Facilitated Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 32
Community development & social theory
Finally, as an additional means of providing ongoing support and learning opportunities for PMs,
IM should explore the possibility of using its network of volunteers (especially pegiat) to
establish mentoring or coaching to PMs related to specific topics. Sufficiently qualified
professionals could support PMs to develop specific skills and knowledge through learning-by-
doing, for example related to:
The use of particular facilitation techniques.
Working with school principals and/or school committees related to developing school
plans and budgets.
Writing persuasively, including for the media.
6. Develop competency profiles for Galuh Officers and Managers
As “support staff”, Galuh Officers and Managers are critical to IM’s success. Since they provide
support to PMs, Officers should at least have the same level of skill and competency as PMs.
They must also have additional competency that will enable them to work effectively within an
organizational setting. Additionally, IM’s culture and ways of working requires both Officers and
Managers to not only have a certain skillset, but also to be sufficiently suited to working within
Given the importance of Galuh staff for the effectiveness and growth of IM, the same rigorous
recruitment and selection processes that IM conducts for PMs should also be applied for vacancies
However, as a foundation for rigorous recruitment and selection, IM also needs to review and clearly
define the knowledge and skills, personal attributes, and soft competencies that Galuh Officers and
Managers must have in order to succeed in their jobs. These should include attributes and
competencies that are suited to working within an adhocracy, for example:
Flexibility (the ability to view external change positively and to quickly adapt to such change).
Originality / Creativity (the ability to develop new ideas to overcome challenges).
Comfortable with Uncertainty (acceptance that not everything can be planned or anticipated
Results-Oriented (the ability to focus on results and desired outcomes rather than on processes).
Learning-Oriented (having a positive view of new knowledge and opportunities to obtain
new knowledge and skills).
7. Experimenting with conducting exit interviews and “After Action Reviews”, including
A variety of knowledge management networks and communities offer information about
innovative approaches to documenting organizational knowledge and making it accessible to
people both inside and outside the organization. Two approaches which are vital to
documenting lessons learned and creating an ‘organizational memory’ are exit interviews