Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Early childhood education (ECE) is not new in Indonesia. However, in the past decade, it has received more attention, as shown by the growing number of ECE centres in both urban and rural areas. This growth is accompanied by policy development that corresponds to the global agenda of ECE. Policy development is inevitably linked with the support of international organisations (such as UNICEF and the World Bank) at both national and local levels, through loans and grass-roots pilot projects. Such neo-liberal policies have been seen as contributing to inequality in educational access in developing countries. What is lacking is an understanding of how policies, caught up in the interwoven nature of global discourse and social problems, are being implemented at the local level. Such understanding is especially important in the changing social and political context of post-Reform Indonesia. Using a critical approach, this article examines the discourse around ECE policies and practice through critical engagement with policy documents and relevant reports. Because policy processes are messy and in many ways relative, this perspective enables the dominant discourse, within which ECE operates, to be challenged. This article concludes by suggesting the integration of ECE and health services at the practice level in order to bridge the current gap between ECE policy and practice.

Keywords

Early childhood education critical approach post-Reform Indonesia decentralisation

Introduction

The global agenda on education has shifted from seeing education as a means for economic advancement to promoting education as a universal human right (Robertson et al., 2007). Consequently, improving education accessibility and early years education for disadvantaged communities are becoming strategies for universal education. In Indonesia, the Reformation Era in 1998 also brought reformation in the education system (Newberry, 2010). However, the first years of this new era were marred by the continuation of economic crises and political upheaval. There was a great fear that Indonesia would have a ‘lost generation’ as children were forced to drop out of school in order to work (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2000, 2001; Hartiningsih, 2000).

At an international level, since 1990, early childhood education (ECE) has been promoted as a means to achieve the ‘Education for All’ goals (World Bank, 1999). Dahlberg and Moss, as cited in Newberry (2010), argue that there is a growing awareness of ECE across the globe, as demonstrated by a rapid increase in initiatives. Indonesia has been receptive to ECE global initiatives through the works of international organisations, such as the World Bank, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO). In Indonesia, ECE is called PAUD (Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini); its direct translation is ‘early childhood education’. For the sake of consistency, this article will use the term ECE.

ECE is not new in Indonesia (Newberry, 2010; PAUDNI, 2011; Thomas, 1988). In fact, early practices of ECE in the 1920s were put in place to counter the Dutch colonial education system. As opposed to the Dutch schools, local ECE initiatives emphasised nationalism, religion, and norms in order to promote a national movement (Newberry, 2010; PAUDNI, 2011). In recent years, ECE development in Indonesia has seen the influence of international organisations in local areas. As decentralisation creates regional autonomy there are opportunities and challenges for national and local governments. In relation to ECE, they need to ensure that children and families are able to benefit from the projects, funds, and other resources that the two governments and international organisations have invested in.

Method

This article examines Indonesia’s ECE policy documents, relevant World Bank and other international organisations’ reports and briefing papers. The documents were in the public domain and include documents that we accessed from the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) in Indonesia. Thirty such documents were critically analysed to challenge the dominant ECE discourse as found in reports from international agencies (e.g. World Bank and UNICEF).

As this article wishes to bridge the gap between knowledge and practical changes, we looked at the multiple perspectives of ECE policymaking players (i.e. local facilitators/teachers, local government, central government, international organisations). It is important to note that due to difficulties in accessing the documents, the multiple perspectives discussed in this article do not take into account the number of documents that each perspective represents.

We used critical analysis of the documents by ways of examining how ECE in Indonesia is perceived and being envisioned within the texts. For instance, we argue that concepts such as ‘quality’ and ‘outcomes’ are contested, especially when we looked at other documents that describe no correlation between teacher’s qualifications and children’s outcomes. Our approach is similar to ‘critical policy analysis’ in that we place emphasis on criticality and take into account social and historical conditions in examining ECE policy, as well as proposing a solution to the policy problem (see Joo and Kwon, 2010: 224–225).

The article has three parts. The first part provides an overview of ECE development in Indonesia before quickly moving on to situating the development in a changing political landscape post-Reformation. Following that, the article shines a light on the dominant discourse of ECE development in Indonesia by giving examples from the international agencies’ reports. The examples are presented to show how local context is overlooked, while the national policy response to the international perspective asserts the global agenda. The last part of the article expands the argument about the overlooked diversity of local ECE practices before concluding.

Contextualising ECE in Indonesia

A paradigm shift and a structural change

Education in Indonesia aims to mould humans into resources, an investment in the nation’s development, preparing them for the local and global world (Musthafa, 2007; PAUDNI, 2011). Thus, education creates human capital. Adriany and Saefullah (2015) argue that human capital discourse is problematic because it preserves inequality and obstructs alternative conceptualisations of childhood from existing by imposing internationally standardised measurements and neglecting diversities. Indonesia’s education system has been scrutinised with studies pointing out the problems of unequal access, the low quality of teachers, and bad infrastructure (Karwati, 2010; Wahab, 2007); elements which human-capital-influenced policies sought to improve. This article will not repeat the extensive discussion on how human capital discourse has framed Indonesia’s national education policies, as these are discussed elsewhere (see Adriany and Saefullah, 2015; Formen and Nuttall, 2014). Instead, we focus on understanding how local ECE practices shed light on the challenges and opportunities for the future of ECE policy in Indonesia.

Indonesia’s national education system had its beginning during the colonial era in the first decades of the 20th century. Ki Hadjar Dewantara, Indonesia’s ‘father of national education’ set the direction of education as guidance, not a determinant factor, for a child’s life and development. Education must free children, spiritually and physically, from oppressive rulers and inhibiting social norms.

What Ki Hadjar proposed was an amalgamation of tradition and education within all aspects of society; the cultural-national approach as it was called. Following Indonesian independence, he proposed that the nation’s culture need not reject foreign materials; instead, it should use those which could develop, enrich, and bring the nation closer to equality (Tamansiswa, 2013). In so doing, the government’s role is to ensure this link between education and culture is taking place. For example, in 1968 the Indonesian government, with the support of UNICEF, undertook a comparative study of ECE development in the US and New Zealand. The government claims that this resulted in the modernisation of ECE in Indonesia (PAUDNI, 2011).

ECE was officially recognised in the country’s national education system in 1950 (PAUDNI, 2011; Thomas, 1988). From then until 2001, and with the establishment of a directorate in the Ministry of National Education (now the MoEC) that deals with ECE (Dirjen PADU), ECE in Indonesia was only in the form of kindergarten (taman kanak-kanak) and play groups (informal ECE centres). During that time, ECE was for children between the ages of 3 and 6 (Thomas, 1988), and its development depended on private institutions (women groups or religious-based organisations). Although the Indonesian government began to support the development of ECE post-1950, its progress was slow as the government’s priority was primary and secondary education (Newberry, 2010). Problems, such as poor teacher quality, unequal access and a low number of ECE centres, began to surface (Newberry, 2010; Thomas, 1988), and still persist (PAUDNI, 2011; UNICEF, 2012; World Bank, 2012a). Thomas (1988) argues that ever since the first kindergartens were built, they were exclusive to middle- and upper-class society and could only be found in cities, and not in rural areas.

In 2004, UNESCO and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) supported a review of ECE in Indonesia (UNESCO, 2005). The review resulted in a merger of the Directorate of Early Childhood Education in 2010, which was responsible for non-formal early childhood services, and the Directorate of Kindergarten and Primary Education for the formal services. The Directorate General of Early Childhood, Non-Formal and Informal Education (PAUDNI) was formed. The World Bank sees this as one of the major milestones in the country’s ECE development (World Bank, 2012b). In reality, formal ECE (Taman Kanak-kanak) and non-formal ECE (PAUD) are still two different entities. This paper focuses on non-formal ECE and its relevant policies.

In recent years, non-formal ECE centres can be found as part of Posyandu. Posyandu is part of community-based health promotion providing minimal standards of health service at the village/community (desa/kelurahan) level. The initiative originated in the 1970s when community cadres conducted door-to-door services, weighing children and promoting family planning and nutrition. The activity was part of a family welfare and empowerment program – Pemberdayaan dan Kesejahteraan Keluarga – that stemmed from an initiative for civil servants’ wives under the auspice of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In 1984 a joint Ministerial Decree formally launched Posyandu (Ministry of Health, 2011). Since 2006, the Ministry of Health, with local governments (district/municipality level) acting as the spearheads, has attempted to promote greater coverage of Posyandu, although it is still only available in slightly more than 50% of the 75.410 villages/communities in Indonesia. The main tasks of Posyandu are promoting and providing for mother and child health, family planning, immunisation, nutrition and diarrhoea handling. Cadres are recruited from the community itself; they are mostly women who are willing to take part in the activity as volunteers, regardless of their educational background so long as they are literate. Training is provided and it is hoped that the objective of enabling these (female) cadres to achieve self-actualisation by serving their own community, is reached.

Nowadays, with the central government moving towards village empowerment, Posyandu is boosted to include aging care, under-fives family development and non-formal ECE. Such Posyandu is called Posyandu Terintegrasi (Integrated Posyandu) (Ministry of Health, 2011, 2012). This movement provides an opportunity to place ECE centres (as part of Posyandu) at the heart of the community.

The most recent ECE policy initiative in Indonesia is the MoEC’s grand design of ECE development (Kerangka Besar Pembangunan PAUD) for 2011–2025. Meeting international standards of ECE is one of the aims of this new design (PAUDNI, 2011). The design sets out the direction of ECE development: to increase accessibility, expand services and provide reliable facilities. These aims resemble those set out by ‘supranational’ organisations (e.g. UNESCO, 2005; World Bank, 1999) and, together with international commitments, act as a driving factor for ECE development. Global achievement of ECE is an inspiration for ECE development in Indonesia (PAUDNI, 2011). Inevitably, the dominant discourse in ECE national policies adheres to the global discourse set by international organisations.

Penn (2002) sees such organisations (e.g. World Bank, OECD) as promoters of inequality. She argues that if ECE policy is viewed as a panacea for addressing inequality, it becomes a tool for imposing a global agenda at the local level. She adds that UNICEF and UNESCO’s promotion of a global agenda for education is in tune with the World Bank’s proposed strategy to fight poverty – that of educating parents and enhancing education services for children. Penn (2002) argues that this ‘standard’ guideline for ECE was constructed from studies in developed countries where the conceptualisation of childhood is likely to be different from that in developing countries.

The global discourse on ECE, as promoted by international organisations, has permeated Indonesia’s policy on ECE and the standards that come with it have streamlined outcomes for ECE practices. Nevertheless, the practice of ECE in Indonesia relies on the community. As the country is embracing regional autonomy, local policy processes are inevitably influencing how global or national policies are being implemented at the local level. This article takes into account the impact of decentralisation on policies and the practice of ECE at both national and local levels.

Decentralising the education sector: potentials at the local level

The goal of Indonesia’s national education system is summed up in three indivisible aspects: intellectual, physical and moral (Soedijarto, 2009). These principles are rooted in Ki Hadjar’s work (Kelch, 2014); education should not only be about measuring intellectual abilities or physical capacities. Unfortunately, studies that focus on these aspects are predominant. Only some studies have found deficiencies in the country’s education quality (Suryadarma and Jones, 2013), and people’s learning ability (Buchori, 2004). These deficiencies have been attributed to the changing political and social context of the nation (e.g. Bjork, 2013; Kristiansen and Pratikno, 2006).

The decade after the Reformation in 1998 was a period of learning about democracy for Indonesia’s political system (Choi, 2009). A system of decentralisation was in place, but there was scepticism about the country’s readiness for such dramatic change (e.g. Colongon Jr, 2003; Malley, 2003; Rohdewohld, 2003). One clear consequence of decentralisation is its effects on how national policies are implemented at the local level. Local government has more power to decide their priorities and, therefore, which areas of development should be funded. There is a complex relationship between national- and local-level government in Indonesia, post-Reformation. Arguably, decentralisation changes policy processes in Indonesia and makes apparent the diversities in regions in terms of their autonomy (Green, 2005).

The country reformed its national education system by enacting a new law on the national education system in 2003 (Sisdiknas). This reformation took the form of an increased education budget, accessibility for all and a decentralised education system. While decentralisation gives more authority to local government to make important policy and administrative decisions on education, the central government still holds the responsibilities for setting standards, accreditation and curriculum development (Directorate MoEC, 2004). As the National Education System Law suggests, decentralisation grants more power to local authorities to oversee educational management and also promotes a greater role for community involvement in education practices (Musthafa, 2007); thus, education strategy can benefit from decentralisation (Robertson et al., 2007).

Problems with decentralisation extend to education access at the local level. Kristiansen and Pratikno (2006) found that local government spending is becoming less transparent and accountable; there is a lower school participation rate in remote areas where agriculture is the main source of income; and household contribution to education is increasing. For ECE, the World Bank agrees that household contribution is higher than in other levels of education services, but maintains that decentralisation would provide more opportunity for local governments to support the development of ECE through policies, budgets and innovations in practice (Denboba et al., 2015). With this in mind, the following two sections discuss examples, from policy documents and relevant reports, to explicate the overlooked potentials, challenges and initiatives for developing ECE at the local level.

Investing for the future

Inequalities in education, including in ECE, have been well documented (Adriany and Saefullah, 2015). Looking at the statistics for ECE centres at the lowest administrative level in villages (Desa), for example, show that 69.70% of villages in Indonesia have ECE centres, but the number is not equally distributed across provinces. This condition is similar to statistics regarding ECE service users (MoEC, 2014). When comparing the aforementioned statistics with those on the health of children (Ministry of Health, 2015), lower health rates can be found in areas that have fewer ECE centres and a lower number of ECE service users. Inequalities may take a while to tackle, especially in the era of regional autonomy. Indeed, amidst such conditions, it is logical that ECE endeavours should be integrated and holistic. This is particularly pertinent in rural areas and areas serving marginalised communities. Community development needs to be at the heart of this approach. Thus, good community facilitators and sufficient village funds are essential for making this possible.

The World Bank argues that in 2009 local (district) governments spent more on ECE services than provincial or national governments, and that their spending was greater on these services than on higher levels of education provision (Denboba et al., 2015). Although this sounds promising for ECE development at the local level, the problems that come with decentralisation, as mentioned before, suggest a need for the further exploration of ECE sector funding in post-Reform Indonesia. Meanwhile, the World Bank also found that success for ECE depends on the implementation of a combined children and families’ policy which includes: maternal health, birth registration and health insurance. However, this finding should be treated with caution as our analysis also found that inter-coordination among agencies is problematic. Nevertheless, the findings show promise for integrated services (such as Posyandu) as an entry point for ECE delivery.

As we have mentioned earlier, the integrated health centre or Posyandu has been around since the 1970s as a well-established service provider for babies, toddlers and mothers, and was used by UNESCO and UNICEF to promote ECE. In 2001, these agencies integrated the Smart Toddler Program into Posyandu (World Bank, 2012b), and now Posyandu runs the non-formal ECE services. The World Bank has supported the development of ECE in Indonesia since 1998 (World Bank, 2003), targeting poor areas through the use of loans and grants. At the grass-roots level, both UNICEF and the World Bank have facilitated the establishment of ECE centres, trained tutors and provided community facilitators to increase awareness of the importance of ECE (World Bank, 2012a, 2012c).

However, as the recent World Bank report on ECE development in Indonesia suggests, the endeavours of these organisations are based on the idea that investing in ECE services will give high returns (World Bank, 2016). The report has the premise that increasing access to preschool services improves school readiness and later educational performance. The report asserts that a project, which was launched in 2009 in cooperation with the Netherlands, has been successful in expanding ECE services in rural areas. The project was deemed to be a worthwhile investment with an estimated cost of approximately US$30 per child and every dollar spent generating 1.3 dollars in benefits (World Bank, 2016). Despite local governments being the higher spenders for ECE development, too much policy response is still taking place at the national level.

At national policy level, Indonesia is not lacking in extensive documentary guidance to improve ECE. For example, the MoEC (2015, 2016) has published conceptual and technical guidance for implementing ECE as well as a set of guidance for ECE educators based on the national curriculum. However, these are mostly theoretically based guidance. Moreover, there are contradictions in these documents. For example, the Apa, Mengapa dan Bagaimana (What, Why and How) about ECE suggests that ECE is: (a) systematically organised as a crucial stage in children’s education; and (b) adopting ‘western’ guidelines for what the ECE curriculum should be, and yet asks for localities to diversify the implementation of the curriculum. Although diversification is encouraged in the decentralisation context, there are problems when implementation is being evaluated. Evaluation tends to overlook the ‘diversification’ effect. What is measured is either school readiness (e.g. World Bank, 2016) or participation statistics (MoEC, 2014). The old education principle of engaging in international discourse and using such engagement for benefit whilst maintaining local consciousness (i.e. uniqueness), is dwarfed and becomes the ‘philosophical’ base of the curriculum (MoEC, 2015), which is of little practical use.

Overlooking diversity and resourcefulness

As investment in ECE aims to alleviate poverty, it needs to be specific; that is, via improved teacher quality. But teacher quality is not the same as teacher qualification. Indonesia’s national development planning agency, BAPPENAS (2014), has found no direct correlation between ECE teachers’ formal educational background and the quality of interaction between teachers and pupils. It goes on to suggest that local and community-based, teachers or facilitators who were supported by civil organisations had more potential for development and ensuring sustainability of ECE service. Meanwhile, one of the major national educational policies is on improving teacher’s formal qualifications. With the ECE global discourse heavy in influencing national policies – as the country’s national policies concur – local potentials are being overlooked, and there is a worry that investing in the future is losing the ‘here and now’.

Seeing ECE as a local affair with practice meeting local needs and contexts is not the narrative of World Bank reports. One report recognises that local government (district or Kabupaten) spends more on ECE services than provincial or national government (Denboba et al., 2015). Another report talks about the importance of ECE for poor children (Hasan et al., 2013). However, these reports did not elaborate the differences between ECE approaches for poor families and those for other families. The World Bank’s experiences of their projects assumed that the importance of ECE was embraced by all families at different socio-economic levels, yet its insistence on improving access and further enrolment in schools has overlooked the diversity of ECE practices.

As Indonesia’s National Mid-term Development Planning 2015–2019 looks to improve the quality of life for people in rural areas, there is an opportunity for ECE to progress in villages with funding being disbursed by central government (Ministry of Rural, Rural Development and Transmigration, 2016). However, some studies of ECE policies conducted by Indonesian government agencies (e.g. MoEC, 2010, 2011) suggest caution. The studies found that prior to this development planning, the national government’s funding for ECE was insufficient, and therefore required local governments to meet the gap. This is echoed in a World Bank report (Hasan et al., 2013). Unfortunately, the MoEC studies suggest that many local governments would not prioritise education, let alone allocate budgeting for ECE. The studies also suggest that the funding from central government had not been dispersed appropriately and disbursement was marred by ‘dodgy’ processes (MoEC, 2011). Also, education and training for educators has been found lacking in rural areas. Funds were mostly spent to cover tutors’ or teachers’ fees and not for the daily operation of centres. Hence, many ECE centres had to use educational tools made from recycled materials (MoEC, 2010). Interestingly, the report notes the use of recycled materials as a limitation rather than resourcefulness.

Global discourse on ECE is promoting services to achieve certain standards (Denboba et al., 2015), and the national curriculum embraces these standards (MoEC, 2015). BAPPENAS (2014) has found that integrated ECE approaches have meaningful outcomes, despite being very different from the standard competencies set in the curriculum. The fact that in most areas ECE services are being implemented as integral to other services (i.e. in Posyandu or schools) demands ECE policies that promote such integration. Although the implementation of policies differs from one area to another, a nationally integrated framework that reflects workable local practices would provide pertinent guidance. Such guidance, for it to be meaningful, needs to be constructed in consultation with the people working directly in ECE settings and with the community. It is also important to work with the ‘left-behind’ community (e.g. local facilitators and poor families) to discover their knowledge and resourcefulness and build on existing practices.

Final thoughts

ECE discourses in policies and foreign-initiated projects have been about creating more chances for children from poor families, or living in rural areas, to attain better academic achievement from formal schooling. However, the narratives in policy documents and relevant reports are conflicting. ECE has been perceived as promoting a child’s holistic development, including diversity, but the documents also perpetuate ECE as a means of standardising competencies. The differing accounts of local government funding for ECE require further analysis.

The global consensus on ECE is that it paves a way to alleviating poverty. In Indonesia, this idea has been infused by the human capital paradigm (Adriany and Saefullah, 2015) through the interweaving of global forces. ECE services have been perceived as an investment for the future, and national-level policies and government priorities have embraced the idea. However, as the country is undergoing social and political changes due to decentralisation, this dominant discourse overlooks an opportunity to make use of local diversities and specific investments, particularly in villages. For example, existing studies that suggest the importance of a teacher’s role have missed an opportunity to direct policy attention towards supporting local teachers. Focus on improving teacher qualifications overlooks the creativity of teachers working with limited resources.

Decentralisation has changed Indonesia’s local governance. However, decentralisation is arguably new to Indonesia, and the country is still discovering ways to navigate changes in politics and public life. This situation provides opportunities for the development of policies to integrate public participation with existing administrative structures in local areas (i.e. villages). As Posyandu (see previous explanation) has been found to be effective in generating public participation in their health programmes (The Asia Foundation, 2004), the Indonesian government is aiming to develop Posyandu in every village. The involvement of kader (cadres) could be extended to facilitating seminars and training that encompass mother and children’s lives. With the regional autonomy that decentralisation brings, there is more freedom for local government to tailor Posyandu services to meet local needs.

As an integrated service, Posyandu may provide an alternative to the limitations of funding and resources in the local area. Without dismissing the challenges that integrated services may pose for practitioners, such as unclear responsibilities, shared funding and unequal allocation (Hudson, 2007), the sustainable nature of Posyandu and its commitment to educating parents and children should be the appeal and benefit of ECE. Indeed, collaboration with the health sector is a promising alternative rather than that of creating one ECE for each village under the sole coordination of the MoEC.

The past 60 years of Indonesia’s education policy has taken stock of western influences. Following economic crises and political upheaval, the country has resorted to burgeoning foreign initiatives, and ECE is no exception. Now, ECE is waiting to progress. This article proposes that any national or local policy approach in the future needs to take into account the complexities of ECE in practice and the influences of decentralisation and the dominant global discourse of ECE. The authors of this paper urge future approaches to the provision of ECE to consider two key factors: the diversity of local ECE practices and teacher resourcefulness, including themselves as a resource. As national policies on ECE insist that public involvement is a crucial part of ECE, ensuring meaningful public participation is essential for the development of ECE services.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Harla Sara Octarra is a doctoral candidate in Social Policy at the University of Edinburgh, UK. She holds a Bachelor degree in Psychology and a Masters degree in Childhood Studies. Before undertaking postgraduate studies, she had been involved in several research and trainings on various issues about children in Indonesia. She has co-written research reports for WHO, ILO, and UNICEF Jakarta, and training manuals on children?s rights, child-friendly city, and HIV/AIDS prevention for the Indonesian Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection.

Agustina Hendriati graduated as a psychologist from University of Indonesia. Agustina continued her master program in child development and ECE at the Institute of Education (was then part of the University of London). Her doctoral degree is on early childhood education from Jakarta State University. She is a freelance consultant working for many international and national organisations, including NGOs and several Indonesian government ministries, mostly in education and child protection sector. She is also a part-time lecturer at the Atma Jaya Catholic University in Jakarta, Indonesia.

References

Adriany

and Saefullah

(2015) Deconstructing human capital discourse in early childhood education. In: Peach

and Lightfoot

(eds) Global Perspectives on Human Capital in Early Childhood Education: Reconceptualizing Theory, Policy, and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 159–182.

Badan Pusat Statistik (2000) Indikator Kesejahteraan Anak 1999 [Child welfare indicators]. Cat. no. 4109, BPS Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia.

Badan Pusat Statistik (2001) Indikator Kesejahteraan Anak 2000 [Child welfare indicators]. Cat. no. 4109, BPS Badan Pusat Statistik, Indonesia

BAPPENAS (2014) Early childhood development strategy study in Indonesia. Jakarta: Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency.

Bjork

(2003) Local responses to centralization policy in Indonesia. Comparative Education Review 47(2): 184–216.

Buchori

(2004) Kurikulum untuk melahirkan generasi pembaru [Curriculum for the generation of reformers]. In: Widiastono TD (ed) Pendidikan Manusia Indonesia. Jakarta: Penerbit Buku Kompas, pp. 292–311.

Choi

(2009) Democracy and patrimonial politics in local Indonesia. Indonesia 88 (October): 131–165.

Colongon AA .

(2003) What is happening on the ground? In: Aspinall

and Fealy

(eds) Local Power and Politics in Indonesia: Decentralisation and Democratisation. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 87–101.

Denboba

Hasan

and Wodon

(eds) (2015) Early Childhood Education and Development in Indonesia: An Assessment of Policies Using Saber. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank. Available at: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-1-4648-0646-9# (accessed 24 August 2017).

10.

Directorate General of Early Childhood, Non-Formal and Informal Education (PAUDNI) (2011) Kerangka Besar Pembangunan PAUD Indonesia Periode 2011–2025 [Indonesian ECE development framework 2011–2025]. Jakarta: PAUDNI, Ministry of Education and Culture.

11.

Directorate General of Out of School Education and Youth, Ministry of Education and Culture (Directorate MoEC) (2004) The Background Report of Indonesia. The UNESCO/OECD Early Childhood Policy Review Project, ED/BAS/EIE/05/A.

12.

Formen

A and

Nuttall

(2014) Tensions between discourses of development, religion, and human capital in early childhood education policy texts: The case of Indonesia. International Journal of Early Childhood 46(1): 15–31.

13.

Green

(2005) Decentralization and good governance: The case of Indonesia. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Paper, no. 18097. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18097/ (accessed 24 August 2017).

14.

Hartiningsih

(2000) 10 Tahun Ratifikasi Konvensi Hak Anak: Persoalan anak masih terus dimarjinalkan. In: Sularto

(ed.) Seandainya aku Bukan Anakmu: Potret Kehidupan anak Indonesia [If I weren’t your child: Portrayal of Indonesian children]. Jakarta: Kompas, pp. 159–165.

15.

Hasan

Hyson

M and

Chang

(eds) (2013) Early childhood education and development in poor villages of Indonesia: Strong foundations, later success. Jakarta: World Bank. Available at: //dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9836-4 (accessed 24 August 2017).

16.

Hudson

(2007) What lies ahead for partnership working? Collaborative contexts and policy tensions. Journal of Integrated Care 15(3): 29–36.

17.

Joo

KP and

Kwon

(2010) Critical policy analysis: Investigating ‘missing’ values in the lifelong education system of South Korea. In: Adult education research conference. Available at: http://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2010/papers/37 (accessed 11 June 2017).

18.

Karwati

(2010) Membangun daya saing bangsa melalui pendidikan: Refleksi profesionalisme guru di era globalisasi [Developing national competitive advantage through education: A reflection on teacher professionalism in globalization era]. In: 2nd international seminar 2010 ‘practice pedagogic in global education perspective’, PGSD UPI, Bandung, 17 May 2010.

19.

Kelch

(2014) Becoming history: Taman Siswa and its influence on the Indonesian national education. Master’s Thesis, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.

20.

Kristiansen

S and

Pratikno (2006) Decentralising education in Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development 26: 513–531.

21.

Malley

(2003) Indonesia in 2002: The rising cost of inaction. Asian Survey 43(1): 135–146.

22.

Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) (2010) Ringkasan eksekutif: Kontribusi pemda terhadap pengelolaan dan penguatan PAUD [Executive summary: Local government contribution on ECE management and strengthening]. Jakarta: Research and Development Unit of the Centre of Educational and Cultural Policy Research, MoEC.

23.

Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) (2011) Ringkasan eksekutif: Studi strategi penggalangan dana penyelenggaraan PAUD [Executive summary: A study on ECE implementation financing]. Jakarta: Research and Development Unit of the Centre of Educational and Cultural Policy Research, MoEC.

24.

Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) (2014) Buku Data PAUDNI 2013 [Profile of the Directorate General ECE, Non-Formal and Informal Education]. Jakarta: MoEC.

25.

Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) (2015) Panduan kurikulum pendidikan anak usia dini: Apa, mengapa dan bagaimana [Guidelines on ECE curriculum: What, why and how]. Available at: https://www.paud.id/2016/02/buku-panduan-kurikulum-paud-2013-direktorat.html (accessed 24 July 2017).

26.

Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) (2016) Peraturan Direktur Jenderal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini Dan Pendidikan Masyarakat Kementerian Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan Nomor 01 Tahun 2016 tentang petunjuk teknis pemetaan mutu program dan/atau satuan pendidikan anak usia dini dan pendidikan masyarakat [Decree of the Directorate General Early Childhood Education and Community Education Ministry of Education and Culture No. 1/2016 on technical guidelines for ECE and community education program quality mapping]. Jakarta: Government of Indonesia.

27.

Ministry of Health (2011) Pengelolaan Posyandu. Jakarta: Ministry of Health in the Republic of Indonesia.

28.

Ministry of Health (2012) Buku Pegangan Kader Posyandu. Jakarta: Ministry of Health in the Republic of Indonesia.

29.

Ministry of Health (2015) Profil Kesehatan Indonesia 2014 [Indonesia Health Profile 2014]. Jakarta: Ministry of Health in the Republic of Indonesia.

30.

Ministry of Rural, Rural Development, and Transmigration (2016) Pokok-pokok kebijakan prioritas penggunaan dana desa 2016 [Policy highlights on priority of rural fund expenditures]. Available at: http://www.djpk.depkeu.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/03.-Penggunaan-Dana-Desa_Kemendes.pdf (accessed 24 August 2017).

31.

Musthafa

(2007) Early childhood care and education in Indonesia: Current practice and future policy directions. Final Report, UNESCO, Jakarta.

32.

Newberry

(2010) The global child and non-governmental governance of the family in post-Suharto Indonesia. Economy and Society 39(3): 403–426.

33.

Penn

(2002) The World Bank’s view of early childhood. Childhood 9(1): 118–132.

34.

Robertson

Novelli

Dale

et al . (2007) Globalisation, Education and Development: Ideas, Actors, Dynamics. London: Department for International Development.

35.

Rohdewohld

(2003) Decentralisation and the Indonesian bureaucracy: Major changes, minor impact. In: Aspinall

E and

Fealy

(eds) Local Power and Politics in Indonesia: Decentralisation and Democratisation. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 259–274.

36.

Schweinhart

(2001) How the High/Scope Perry preschool study has influenced public policy. In: Third international, interdisciplinary biennial conference organized by the Centre of Evaluation and Monitoring:Evidence-based policies and indicator systems, University of Durham, England, 4–7 July 2001. Available at: www.cem.org/attachments/ebe/P253-260%20Larry%20Schweinhart.pdf (accessed 10 August 2017).

37.

Soedijarto (2009) Some notes on the ideals and goals of Indonesia’s national education system and the inconsistency of its implementation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities 2: 1–11.

38.

Suryadarma

D and

Jones

(2013) Meeting the education challenge

. In:

Suryadarma

and Jones

(eds) Education in Indonesia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 1–14.

39.

Tamansiswa (2013) Ki Hadjar Dewantara: Pemikiram, Konsepsi, Keteladanan, Sikap Merdeka [Ki Hadjar Dewantara: Thinking, Conception, Exemplary, Freedom Attitude]. Jogjakarta: Majelis Luhur Persatuan Tamansiswa and Universitas Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa.

40.

The Asia Foundation (2004) Indonesia Rapid Decentralization Appraisal (IRDA) fourth report. Jakarta: The Asia Foundation. Available at: https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/IRDA4English.pdf (accessed 24 August 2017).

41.

Thomas

(1988) Dividing the labor: Indonesia’s government/private early childhood education system. Early Childhood Development and Care 39(1): 33–43.

42.

United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) (2005) Policy review report: Early childhood care and education in Indonesia. The Section for Early Childhood and Inclusive Education Division of Basic Education UNESCO Education Sector, Early Childhood and Family Policy Series no. 10, 2005.

43.

United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) (2012) Education and early childhood development. Issue briefs, Indonesia, October 2012. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/A3-_E_Issue_Brief_Education_REV.pdf (accessed 24 August 2017).

44.

Wahab

(2007) Menegakkan sistem pendidikan nasional berdasarkan Pancasila [Implementing national education system based on Pancasila]. Paper presented in Sarasehan Hari lahir Pancasila dari Klaster Pendidikan dengan tema “Sistem Pendidikan Nasional untuk Membangun Peradaban Indonesia yang dijiwai oleh Nilai-nilai Pancasila”, Balai Senat UGM, Bulaksumur Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 30 April–1 May 2007.

45.

World Bank (1999) Education sector strategy. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank.

46.

World Bank (2003) A global directory of early childhood development projects. Report no. 23936. Washington DC: The World Bank.

47.

World Bank (2012a) The Indonesia Early Childhood Education and Development (ECED) Project: Findings and policy recommendations. Policy brief no. 73667. Jakarta: World Bank.

48.

World Bank (2012b) Early childhood education and development in Indonesia: Strong foundations, later success – a preview. Jakarta: World Bank.

49.

World Bank (2012c) The right start in life. Focus on policy framework for early childhood development, issue 6, March. Jakarta: World Bank.

50.

World Bank (2016) Indonesia: Can community preschools improve poor children’s development? From Evidence to Policy, March. Washington, DC: Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund/World Bank.

‘Old,borrowed,and renewed’: A review of early childhood education policy in post-Reform Indonesia