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 Executive Summary is intended primarily to provide IM with the key findings that have emerged over the course of the assignment. These findings, which are presented in greater detail in the main report, are intended to be used as a reference by IM for further developing and refining its overall strategy for the period 2016-2020 and beyond.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FACILITATED REFLECTION ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF INDONESIA MENGAJAR
2010-2015
Australian Aid—managed by the Palladium Group on behalf of the Australian Government

2. Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 i
Table of Content
Table of Content ..............................................................................................................i
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................1
2. Background & Context...............................................................................................1
3. IM’s Program Logic....................................................................................................1
3.1. IM’s Goals ..........................................................................................................1
3.2. IM’s Outcome Areas ...........................................................................................2
4. Key Results of the Performance Reflection.................................................................3
4.1. Areas of Strong Performance ..............................................................................3
4.2. Areas of Uncertain Performance.........................................................................3
4.3. Areas of Potential Improvement.........................................................................4
Note: the Concept of ‘Adhocracy’ is Key to Understanding IM’s Performance............6
5. Potential Lessons Learned from Other Organizations .................................................6
6. Items for Consideration.............................................................................................6

4. Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 1
1. Introduction
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 Executive Summary is intended primarily to provide IM with the key findings that have emerged
over the course of the assignment. These findings, which are presented in greater detail in the main
report, are intended to be used as a reference by IM for further developing and refining its overall
strategy for the period 2016-2020 and beyond.
2. Background & Context
Over the first 5 years of its existence (2010-2015), IM has compiled a significant amount of
knowledge and experience, which it has used to iteratively adapt and improve its work over time.
Now, as IM prepares to enter into its second phase of existence (2016-2021), IM’s leadership feels
that there are a series of unanswered questions about the organization’s overall strategy and
performance. With support from DFAT – through EP-POM – between February and April 2016 IM
has undertaken a facilitated process to:
 Review, clarify, and (as necessary) further develop IM’s ‘theory of change’,
 Reflect on and – to the extent possible – conduct a more structured assessment of various
aspects of IM’s strategy to date, and
 Identify other organizations which may be relevant for IM to learn from and identify key
lessons from those organizations that IM can use to further improve its effectiveness
going forward.
3. IM’s Program Logic
One major focus of this assignment was to clarify and further develop IM’s program logic (logika
perubahan). This has been done by clarifying IM’s overall goals, the outcomes it hopes to achieve at
the end of each phase, the main “change pathways” through which those outcomes will be
achieved, and the key activities that IM will undertake in pursuit of its targeted outcomes.
3.1. IM’s Goals
IM is that has two separate but equal goals.
IM’s first goal is around the provision of education in Indonesia. 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

5. Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 2
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’s second goal is around leadership. IM is built on a fundamental criticism of current Indonesian
leadership, namely that leaders frequently do not have a genuine understanding of conditions in
more remote areas and at the grassroots level, which causes them to make decisions and enact
policies which are not necessarily in the best interests of remote areas and Indonesia as a whole.
The second overall goal of IM’s existence is “Indonesian leaders lead ‘intelligently’” (pemimpin
Indonesia memimpin dengan ‘cerdas’), where “intelligently” includes based on a nuanced view and a
sensitive understanding of how government (and other sectors) can contribute to the equitable
development of Indonesia. A subsidiary goal is 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).
3.2. IM’s Outcome Areas
This assignment has identified four main outcome areas for IM and has proposed the addition of a
fifth outcome area going forward. These are described as follows:
Outcome Area 1 - education provision in “in service” schools.
This outcome area is about the implementation of school-based management by school principals,
the use of student-centered learning methods by teachers, and parents’ active participation in the
education and development of their children. Students are positioned as an entry point for such
change, since positive changes in student enthusiasm and performance have the potential to
generate attention and motivation for change among both teachers and parents.
Outcome Area 2 - community involvement in “in service” communities and districts.
This outcome area is about community members at both the village and district level participating
more actively in education.
Outcome Area 3 - the emergence and growth of local initiatives.
This outcome area is about the existence and actions of penggerak (local level actors who help to
lead the development and implementation of local initiatives), including to enlist the support of
community members and corporate partners. Pegiat (defined by IM as activists from outside “in
service” districts that contribute to and help to manage a variety of IM initiatives) provide key
support to the development and implementation of initiatives at the local level.
Outcome Area 4 - the development of future leaders.
This outcome area is about the contributions of alumni of the IM network (defined as former
Pengajar Muda (PMs), IM staff, and penggerak) in ways that demonstrates their grassroots
understanding and sensitivity, and also continues to develop their leadership capacity.

6. Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 3
Proposed Additional Outcome Area – the identification of systemic problems and the
development of strategies to address them.
This outcome area, which is proposed as a new addition based on the results of this review, is about
involving decision-makers and people who have the ability to influence them to acknowledge and
take action to address more systemic barriers to the effective provision of education.
4. Key Results of the Performance Reflection
4.1. 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 areas of strong performance include:
1. 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. There is also 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.
2. THE EMERGENCE OF NEW LOCAL INITIATIVES. A wide variety of new initiatives have
emerged throughout the IM network, and many of these initiatives are explicitly or implicitly
filling gaps left by poor government performance in terms of education delivery or
management. 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.
3. PROVIDING FUTURE LEADERS WITH FORMATIVE GRASSROOTS EXPERIENCES. 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. 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.
4.2. Areas of Uncertain Performance
In addition to the areas of strong performance above, this review has identified two significant areas
of uncertain performance:
1. RELATED TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF CHANGES ENCOURAGED BY IM AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
EVEN AFTER IM NO LONGER HAS A PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT. A
major question – as yet unanswered – is whether the behavioral change IM has successfully

7. Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 4
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. A second
major question is the extent to which the local initiatives that have emerged over time will
continue to be sustained in the light of potential resource and capacity constraints. Going
forward, IM’s ability to provide effective support to these initiatives from afar will be a
critical determinant of the extent to which IM succeeds in contributing to longer term
changes in local education.
2. RELATED TO CHANGES IN STUDENT LEARNING. 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 “more effective education provision” and
a “more intelligent nation.” As acknowledged by IM leadership, the extent of PMs’ and local
initiatives’ contributions to positive changes in learning outcomes remains largely an
unanswered question.
4.3. Areas of Potential Improvement
This has also identified several areas of IM’s performance which offer potential opportunities for
improvement in the future:
1. FOCUSING ON THE GOAL OF IMPROVED LEARNING OUTCOMES. IM’s goals around
education are broad and open to interpretation. 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
channel the positive energy generated by IM on more specific goals.
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. This review has uncovered very
little information to support the fact that IM has focused on – let alone made meaningful
contributions to – more systemic problems such as 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
principals. Without working to addressing these more fundamental problems, there are
significant risks that IM’s school-level interventions may not produce lasting change.
3. PROMOTING THE INTENTIONAL AND CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHOOL-BASED
MANAGEMENT. 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. IM’s experience over its initial 5 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

8. Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 5
not well suited for school principals. A different approach is needed to influence school
principals to implement school based management.
4. DEVELOPMENT AND ONGOING SUPPORT FOR PMS, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF THEIR
ABILITY TO ‘THINK SYSTEMICALLY AND WORK POLITICALLY’. 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 a teacher (Pengajar Muda) rather than as
a community organizer (Penggerak Muda). The main skills developed during training are
teaching, facilitation, and coaching; there is comparatively little emphasis on helping PMs to
better understand the systemic nature of certain problems, or how to work within local
education and political systems.
5. PROFILING, SELECTION, AND DEVELOPMENT OF OFFICERS AND MANAGERS FOR GALUH. A
key component of success for IM is the ability of “support staff” (Galuh Officers and
Managers) to function independently and collaborate effectively with all members of the IM
network. 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. 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 specific nature of
IM. With a more clearly defined success profile, IM should be able to leverage its experience
in training PMs to develop a stronger development program for both Officers and Managers.
6. 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 and not yet available to other actors within or outside the IM network.
There does not yet seem to be a culture of documenting key lessons learned for future use
or use in other contexts. This 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. Furthermore, this review revealed that the majority of IM’s “body of
knowledge” is based mainly on its own experience and the experience of its broader
network; there is relatively little reference to external concepts or experience.
7. STRATEGIC EVALUATION AND REFLECTION. IM’s monitoring and evaluation efforts are
predominantly at the operational level. There is little to no strategic evaluation or
documentation of (a) the process of developing and implementing key initiatives or (b) the
results of those key initiatives. This means that IM leadership’s questions related to the
appropriateness and effectiveness of the organization’s strategy in reaching its targeted
outcomes remain largely unanswered.
8. 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. These
questions are natural, since as a young decentralized organization, IM’s strategy – and even
identity – continues to evolve as it learns iteratively about what is effective and what is not.

9. Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 6
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.
Note: the Concept of ‘Adhocracy’ is Key to Understanding IM’s Performance
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. IM is more appropriately understood as a relatively organic structure
with little formalization of behavior and a high degree of decentralization within the organization – this
is sometimes referred to in the organizational development literature an “adhocracy”. 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 generally best suited to dynamic and complex environments which
demand high degrees of 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 creative
solutions in a variety of local environments at both the school level and district level.
5. Potential Lessons Learned from Other Organizations
This review identified two organizations seem to be a valuable as a source of learning for IM, as
follows:
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. 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. This review suggests the initiation of communication between
Pratham and IM to further explore similarities and potential opportunities for collaboration.
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.
SOLIDARITAS facilitated a sharing discussion between the KINERJA team and IM, the results of which
could be used by IM to develop a more effective strategy for promoting improved management at
the school level.
6. Items for Consideration
Based on the above, this review has identified 10 “items for consideration” which could improve
IM’s overall organizational performance in the future.

10. Reflection on the Performance of Indonesia Mengajar 2010-2015 7
1. Identify simple but reliable assessments of learning outcomes and incorporate them into
IM’s interventions at the school and/or district level, as a way of focusing attention and
rallying community support around learning outcomes.
2. Define “Progress Markers” in relation to the projected 5-year lifecycle of change at both the
school and district level, and explicitly acknowledge that there is a shift in the role of PMs
over time, both from the school level to the district level, as well as from their role as a
Pengajar Muda to a Penggerak Muda.
3. Adopt a more structured approach to improving school management by incorporating key
ideas from KINERJA to actively create a “safe space” where the school principal, school
committee, and parents/community members can discuss problems, agree on actions, and
monitor progress.
4. Establish an internal evaluation and reflection unit which could implement and/or manage
strategic evaluation work, including in collaboration with a network of external researchers.
5. Expand the concept of training and support for PMs beyond pedagogy, facilitation, and
coaching to include concepts from the institutional reform literature, facilitation tools for
analyzing problems, and tools for planning for strategic stakeholder engagement and
advocacy. IM should also compile a set of additional reference materials (bahan
pengayaan) on a variety of topics and make them available to PMs and other actors in the
IM network online.
6. Develop competency profiles for Galuh Officers and Managers and apply rigorous
recruitment and selection processes for vacancies in Galuh.
7. Strengthen knowledge management practices, including by experimenting with conducting
exit interviews and “After Action Reviews.”
8. Encourage the development of a “Knowledge Bank” for the IM network by actively
encouraging Galuh Officers (and other actors within the IM network) to review and
summarize relevant content related to key topics.
9. Acknowledge that optimism – although important – can also potentially act as a barrier to
learning, and work to actively cultivate a culture that encourages honest but positive
exchanges of information.
10. Explore collaboration with the DFAT-funded INOVASI program, for example by proposing a
partnership for the evaluation of promising local initiatives (e.g. Gerakan Bima Mengajar or
RUBI Bima).

11. Australia’s Education Partnership with Indonesia
Education Partnership Performance Oversight and Monitoring
EP-POM
19
th
floor Ratu Plaza Building
Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 9
Jakarta 10270
T: 021 720 6616
F: 021 720 6616 ext.100
E: nick.clinch@ep-pom.com
Australian Aid – managed by the Palladium Group on behalf of the Australian Government