Fulfilling Individual Right to and Need of Education
A Note to Remember for Indonesian Educational Leaders
Cecep Somantri
1
and Sardin Sardin
2
1
School of Education, The University of Nottingham, United Kingdom (UK)
2
Faculty of Educational Science, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
Keywords: Non-formal education, orthodoxy.
Abstract: There is a global orthodoxy viewing education as a fundamental human right. However, data show that there
remain millions of out of school and illiterate population worldwide. Even when enrolled at school, millions
of children are not learning. This signifies that schools cannot be the only “vehicle” to provide quality
education for all. It is obvious for at least two reasons: first, education is a lifelong learning process that does
not equate with schooling; and second, there are other categories of education from where people could learn
throughout life. Non-formal education is a learning pathway that could be an alternative for people at all
background and ages to gain access to education. Although conceptually and terminologically non-formal
education is contested, literature show that it has been part of all cultures throughout human history, and its
practices work and exist until today. Literature from the last four decades suggest that the significance of non-
formal education lies on the heart that it can function as a complement, supplement and
replacement/alternative to formal education. By employing the framework of Bell and Stevenson (2013) in
Indonesian context, it is suggested that non-formal education is a worth-considering educational policy to
boost the country’s educational improvement.
1 INTRODUCTION
It is widely believed that education is a top priority
investment for all countries across the globe.
Education is perceived as ‘an investment in human-
capital…that will become the key to economic, and
so to social advance for a country’ (Simon, 1985,
p.15). In accordance with this view, Bell and
Stevenson (2007, p.xxiv) argue that in this
globalisation era there is a “global orthodoxy”
assuming that ‘…investment in education [is] seen as
the key factor in determining the ability of nation
states to hold their own in a globalised world.’
Besides viewing it as an investment, the global
orthodoxy is somehow also portrayed in how
countries around the world recognise education as
one of the most basic human rights documented in
various agreement.
A number of documents and commitments have
been legalised and agreed among countries to support
and guarantee that everybody regardless of their
socio-cultural and religious background could have
access to and gain benefits from education. For
example, there are the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights proclaimed in 1948 with the focus of
education as one of the fundamental human rights,
UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in
Education (1960) urging UNESCO Member States to
implement the right to education in their respective
country, the European Social Charter (ESC, adopted
1961, revised 1996) guaranteeing social and
economic human rights including free primary and
secondary education, World Declaration on
Education For All (EFA) and Framework For Action
to Meet Basic Learning Needs (1990) with the
emphasis to make primary education accessible to all
children and to massively reduce illiteracy before
year 2000, the Dakar Framework for Action, EFA
(2000) reaffirming the continuation of efforts to
achieve EFA targets by the year 2015, and the latest
one (2015), Incheon Declaration Education 2030
emphasising on education as a lifelong learning
process as well as another opportunity for UNESCO
Member States to fulfil EFA Targets by 2030. These
commitments, agreed by many different countries,
signify a “global orthodoxy” in viewing the
importance of education for each country’s
development.
Somantri, C. and Sardin, S.
Fulfilling Individual Right to and Need of Education - A Note to Remember for Indonesian Educational Leaders.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2017) - Volume 1, pages 17-28
ISBN: 978-989-758-314-8
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
17

Despite the common understanding on the
significance of education, unfortunately, many
recognise education as a process which is bounded
strictly by time and location (Faure’s report 1972;
Romi and Schmida, 2009). Allied to this idea is
Coombs and Ahmed (1973) arguing that there is a
view that equates education with schooling. In
addition, Graham-Brown (1991, p.64) mentions that
‘most people associate education with schools,
colleges and universities,’ or what Coombs and
Ahmed (1973), Coombs, Prosser and Ahmed (1973),
and Coles (1982) regard as the “formal sector.” As a
result, schools as well as colleges and universities, to
a certain extent, are recognised as ‘the only
institutions which specialise in education’ (Illich,
1971).
Today, however, it is increasingly recognised that
many schools fail to provide some of the basic skills,
such as literacy, to a significant number of students,
and even “stupefy” some talented ones with boredom
(LeCompte and Dworkin, 1991). In line with it,
Yasunaga (2014, p.4) believes that schools alone
cannot provide quality education for “all”, and
different learning pathways are to be provided. In this
context, ‘any learning and training which takes place
outside recognised educational institutions,’
commonly called “non-formal education” is such a
pathway (Tight, 1996; 2001).
Given the notion that schools could not be “the
best vehicle” to fully satisfy some specific needs of
learners (children, youth and adults), and undertake
most of the educational tasks (Evans, 1981; Rogers,
2004), this paper seeks to answer three main
questions by referring to international literature. The
questions are: (i) why is non-formal education a
worth-considering pathway?; (ii) residing to
Indonesian context, why is non-formal education
significant to support the country’s educational
improvement?; and finally, (iii) what are the
implications for Indonesian educational leaders?
Where appropriate and available, the paper will also
take into account relevant Indonesian educational
data, statistics and practices to enrich the discussions.
2 OUT-OF-SCHOOL
POPULATION
At the World Education Forum (WEF) 2000 in
Dakar-Senegal, UNESCO Member States made a
“promise” to realise six wide-ranging goals of
Education for All (EFA) to be met by the end of 2015.
The promise represents global goals in education,
such as: (i) comprehensive early childhood care and
education; (ii) free and compulsory primary
education of good quality; (iii) appropriate learning
and life skills programmers for young people and
adults; (iv) improvement by at least 50 per cent of
adult literacy; (v) gender equality in education; and,
(vi) quality of education through the recognition and
measurement of learning outcomes from every aspect
(UNESCO, 2000).
By the end of 2015, UNESCO published a report
that provides comprehensive assessment and analysis
on the achievement of EFA goals among 164
countries in the world. Some of its key findings
mention that: (i) there has been tremendous progress
in educational attainment across the world since
2000; (ii) governments, civil society and the
international community have shown great efforts by
halving almost 50 per cent of children and
adolescents who were out of school since 2000; and,
(iii) despite all of this progress, it is unfortunate that
the world has not been able to achieve what has been
promised in the EFA goals (UNESCO, 2015).
Further statistics, released by UNESCO Institute
for Statistics (UIS) and UNICEF in 2015, discover
that 58 million children of primary school age (aged
roughly 6 to 11 years) and 63 million adolescents of
lower secondary school age are out of school
worldwide. When viewed geographically, the number
of out-of-school population exists in all continents
and countries. However, across geographical regions
and age groups, the report points out that girls are still
more likely to be out of school than boys.
Furthermore, the 58 million out-of-school children
are likely to encounter great difficulties in the future,
and will lead them to illiteracy and unemployment
(UIS and UNICEF, 2015).
A report published by UNESCO Institute for
Lifelong Learning (UIL) in 2016 aggravates the
statistics above. The report shows that currently there
are around 757 million youth and adults worldwide,
two third of whom are women and 115 million of
them are aged between 15 and 24 years old, who still
cannot read or write a simple sentence. Again, in this
context, many countries around the world fail to meet
the EFA target in halving the number of adult
illiterate population by 2015, and not to mention, in
realising gender equality and equity in education as
well as quality education for all (UIL, 2016).
What do these alarming statistics signify? Despite
the fact that many countries broke their “promise” to
achieve quality EFA, one common thread that many
countries around the world face is, ‘education
systems and the environment that surrounds them
often put particular population at a disadvantage: the
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
18

most disadvantaged population continue to be
marginalised’ (UIS and UNICEF, 2015, p.8). In other
words, to some extent, this common finding relates
back to what Bourdieu claimed more than three
decades ago about how education helps to reproduce
social inequality and social exclusion (Bourdieu and
Passeron, 1977).
Another big questions to follow are: what is next?
How can the problems be solved? These are some of
the questions that educational leaders around the
world, especially from developing countries, have
been trying to solve (Bukova, 2014; Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD],
2014; OECD, 2015).
3 NON-FORMAL EDUCATION:
AN EVOLVING CONCEPT
Since the early 1970s, three forms of education:
formal, non-formal and informal education have been
widely accepted as the typology of education or
learning (Coombs and Ahmed, 1973; European
Commission, 2001; UIS, 2012). The discourse of
non-formal education, specifically, came to
prominence based on the view that equates education
with learning, regardless of where, when and how the
learning occurs (Faure’s report 1972; Coombs et al,
1973; Romi and Schmida, 2009). However, when it
comes to a universally accepted definition, the term is
contested (Evans, 1981; Hoppers, 2006; Romi and
Schmida, 2009, Rogers, 2004). Oftentimes it is
instead being contrasted with formal education as part
of three categorisations of education – formal, non-
formal and informal education (Rogers, 2004;
Yasunaga, 2014).
Coombs and Ahmed (1973, p.10) view ‘education
as a learning process starting from earliest infancy
through adulthood that entails a variety of methods
and sources of learning.’ They group these methods
and sources of learning into three categories: (i)
formal education: ‘the hierarchically structured,
chronologically graded educational system, running
from primary school through the university and
including, in addition to general academic studies, a
variety of specialised programmers and institutions
for full-time technical and professional training’; (ii)
non-formal education: ‘any organised educational
activity outside the established formal system-
whether operating separately or as an important
feature of some broader activity-that is intended to
serve identifiable learning clientele and learning
objectives’; and, (iii) informal education: ‘the truly
lifelong process whereby every individual acquires
attitudes, values, skills and knowledge from daily
experience and the educative influences and
resources in his or her environment-from family and
neighbours, from work and play, from the
marketplace, the library and the mass media.’
This education typology remains accepted in
definition and practice up to this present time.
However, some have re-conceptualised the notion of
non-formal education, showing a change in
understanding “education” and “learning”. Colley,
Hodkinson, and Malcolm (2003) mention that
conceiving formality and informality as attributes of
learning is more accurate than thinking learning to be
formal, non-formal or informal, because learning has
no discrete categories. Farrell and Hartwell (2008,
p.29) further argue that since the distinction between
formal and non-formal education is often blurred, it is
better to see that ‘there are very strong school-
community linkages, with parents and other
community members actively supporting the work of
the school, but they take different organisational
forms in the different locations.’ Rogers (2004)
believes that recent diverse forms of educational
provision, especially flexible schooling, have caused
the terms “formal” and “non-formal” become almost
meaningless. Rogers (2004, p.265) suggests an
alternative model that stresses on “contextualisation
context” by viewing ‘formal education as highly
decontextualised, which does not change with
changes of participants, while the highly
contextualised education, where the framing, the
subject matter and the processes change with each
new group which is enrolled, might be called informal
education.’ Finally, Robinson-Pant (2016, p.25)
suggests to term ‘learning processes depending on the
activities and processes, and see informal, non-formal
and/or formal learning as a continuum rather than
polarised approaches’.
All of the reconceptualisations of non-formal
education above signify how education and learning
are understood from time to time. However, when it
comes to critically appreciate non-formal education
as a concept, the reconceptualisations discount the
idea that: (i) non-formal education emerges as a
response towards the fact that human beings learn not
only in schools and other formal institutions; (ii)
education is not confined to schools or universities;
and, (iii) flexibility of learning is one of its important
features and hence, flexible schooling is indeed non-
formal. Meanwhile, at practical level, successful
practices of non-formal education exist until today as
shown by Robinson-Pant (2016) through country
studies of learning knowledge and skills for
Fulfilling Individual Right to and Need of Education - A Note to Remember for Indonesian Educational Leaders
19

agriculture to improve rural livelihoods in Cambodia,
Egypt and Ethiopia.
Besides being continuously re-conceptualised, the
terminology “non-formal education” is also
contested. Coombs et al. (1973) explain that some
prefer other terms such as, out-of-school education,
flexible learning, and alternative learning, to mention
a few. However, ‘the best of them come down to
saying the same thing in different ways’ (Coombs et
al., 1973). What is more important to emphasise is
that any educational activity could be categorised
non-formal when it is organised to: (i) increase access
to education for those who have been excluded from
schooling (UNESCO, 2015); (ii) establish alternative
forms of education (Yasunaga, 2014); and (iii)
empower communities and individuals through
educational activities that are not an integral part of
the formal education system (Coombs et al., 1973;
Graham-Brown, 1991; Robinson-Pant 2016).
Therefore, despite being contested, non-formal
education remains exist and accepted both as a
concept and practice up to this present day.
A major problem in seeking an adequate concept
of non-formal education, as argued by Brennan
(1997, p.185), is due to the fact that while ‘it appears
to be a social phenomenon, it is also culture and
nation specific.’ Coombs (1985) and Brennan (1997)
explain that the discourses of non-formal and
informal education emerged with particular reference
to the problems of developing countries. Nonetheless,
they are also applicable to developed countries,
though they are more likely to have another label,
such as “community education”, “adult learning and
education”, etc. (UIL, 2016).
Since it is culture and country specific, the
meaning and significance of non-formal education
vary from country to country, and region to region.
For example, in some developed countries like
England and Germany, the term non-formal
education is best represented with adult and
continuing education or adult education and training
(Tight, 2002), while in Latin America and Eastern
Europe, the term is well-known as popular education
and folk education (Graham-Brown, 1991), and in
Asian and African countries, the term is widely
known as non-formal education (Coles, 1982).
Whichever the term is, Yasunaga (2014) argues that
they came to stronger prominence after Faure’s report
in 1972 introduced the concept of lifelong learning
that expanded the understanding of education being
not limited solely to formal schooling.
International Standard Classification of Education
(ISCED) marked the final evolving concept of non-
formal education by adopting a more recent definition
in 2011. The difference between ISCED’s definition
and the one proposed by Coombs et al’s in 1973 is
that, the former is formulated to compare educational
statistics and indicators across countries through non-
formal education as a policy and educational activity
(Yasunaga, 2014), while the latter emphasises more
on educational programmers held outside schools, but
at the same time could also function as a feature of
formal education. ISCED (UIS, 2012, p.11) explain
that ‘non-formal education is often provided to
guarantee the right of access to education for
population at any age and background that may or
may not lead to formal or equivalent to formal
qualifications, and it can be carried out in a short
duration and low intensity in the forms of short
courses, workshops or seminars, and does not
necessarily apply a continuous pathway-structure.’
Some of its activities may cover literacy education,
life skills, work skills, and social or cultural
development programmers.
For its comprehensive inclusion in reaching all
out-of-school population at all ages and background,
despite it is culture and country specific, this paper
stands to use the notion of non-formal education than
other similar terms saying almost the same thing.
Furthermore, as Coles (1982) explains, ‘there is no
point to indulge in semantic argument over
terminology as the most important thing is to
demonstrate that non-formal education works.’
4 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NON-
FORMAL EDUCATION
Non-formal education is obviously not a new
phenomenon. It has been part of all cultures
throughout human history even far before the era of
Aristotle and Plato (Evans, 1981; Frith and Reed,
1982; Coles, 1982). Also, it has clear linkages with
the practices of educators, such as Freire and Illich, in
the way that both figures criticised how the formal
system of education became a “virus” leading to all
kinds of social ills (Fordham, 1980; Rogers, 2004).
As a matter of fact, Coles (1982) explains that ‘it is
only since the break-up of the monasteries in
developed countries that schools as special
institutions of learning have become the accepted way
of imparting knowledge in which gradually, school
and the formal education became a natural part of the
landscape.’
In both developed and developing countries,
however, there is a growing awareness that in some
ways the formal educational systems alone cannot
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
20

respond to the challenges of modern society (Rogers,
2004) and, to a certain extent, the limits of formal
education have been reached since schools fail to
carry out some of educational goals (Evans, 1981).
Allied this idea, Illich (1971) argues that ‘many
students, especially those who are poor, intuitively
know what the schools do for them: confusing
teaching with learning, grade advancement with
education, a diploma with competence, and fluency
with the ability to say something new.’ In line with it,
Carnie (2003) argues that, schools have made
students see “non-tested” activities such as sport,
music, drama and environmental projects and school
trips “non-essential”. It is all because many students
understand learning as spending a large part of their
day sitting at a table receiving “knowledge”, or what
Apple (1993) calls “the official knowledge”, in
preparation for standardised tests (Carnie, 2003).
UNESCO (2015) confirm these claims with data
showing that there were 250 million children enrolled
at school in the world, but not learning the basics in
reading and mathematics (UNESCO, 2015).
Combined together, Illich and Carnie’s arguments,
supported with data from UNESCO (2015), explain
the “why” and “how” schools “stupefy” a number of
students as claimed by LeCompte and Dworkin
(1991). However, these arguments, if not criticisms,
also come to prominence by no surprise since, as
explained by Ball (2003, p.215), a new mode of
“performativity” in the formal education sector
‘requires individual practitioners to focus on targets,
indicators and evaluations as “real” academic work or
“proper” learning.’
With increasing “complaints” toward schools and
formal education, it causes no surprise that non-
formal education is regarded as the “Maverick” in the
education family (Coles, 1982) or what Rogers
(2004) calls the “panacea” for all educational ills.
Moreover, with a rigid formal schooling system that
has little compromise and measure of reform as
complained by Freire (1972), an educational system
which is non-formal will be needed to remedy such
characteristics (Rogers, 2004). However, it is
important to prove how and why non-formal
education is significant as a solution towards what
schools and formal education fail to carry out. By
referring to Coombs and Ahmed (1973), Coombs, et
al. (1973), Evans (1981), La Belle (1981), Coles
(1982), Brennan (1997), and Yasunaga (2014), the
significance of non-formal education could be seen
from the three categories it has in its relationship with
formal education: (i) as a complement; (ii) as a
supplement; and, (iii) as a replacement/alternative.
Complementary education. This category
functions to complement the formal school system. It
enacts as part of “deschooling education movement”
that sees the importance of involving schools more
directly in the community. The main beneficiaries of
this programmer are generally primary or secondary
education students. Some examples of its activities
are sports clubs, art groups, hobby societies, drama
groups, and the like. These activities are usually
school-based and school-supervised, but they
incorporate non-classroom component.
Supplementary education. This second category
commonly emerges later in one’s life. It exists after a
person has accomplished some amount of formal
education, and decides to supplement his learning
with activities to develop his skills. The learning
activities could be in the forms of apprenticeships,
skill-training courses, entrepreneurship training, and
income-generating programmers. Supplementary
education is also oftentimes useful for school drop-
outs and those who have completed secondary school
but need to find employment.
Replacement/alternative education. This last
category aims to replace or substitute formal
education dedicated to both children and adults with
no access to schools. Some of its activities are literacy
classes and equivalency education programmers
attended by non-schooling children and adults as well
as school-leavers. The beneficiaries of the category
are mainly people who are marginalised because they
are poor, nomadic, live in remote and underdeveloped
areas, and belong to a specific ethnic group. In some
developing countries, this category of non-formal
education functions as a stepping-stone for all
learners moving into the formal system.
In addition to these three categories, Coles (1982)
explains that there are other principal justifications
why it is important to take non-formal education
seriously. With its universal application, non-formal
education is able to see that: (i) learning is a
continuing process throughout life; (ii) learning is to
prepare people for change and eventually help men
and women to become willing and understanding
partners in the process; and, (iii) education lies in the
belief that each and every person is a unique being
whose right it is to be enabled, and develop and use
their talents.
In the context of fulfilling the EFA global goals,
on the other hand, Yasunaga (2014) claims that non-
formal education’s flexible and context-specific
approaches are powerful to meet the right to
education of those who are marginalised and have
specific learning needs. The emphasis of the claim
lies on the idea that as a strategy for a country to
Fulfilling Individual Right to and Need of Education - A Note to Remember for Indonesian Educational Leaders
21

accomplish its promise to “the global pressures on
education” (Rogers, 2004), non-formal education has
an important role alongside schooling system to
provide, at least, basic education to population with
lack access to or cannot complete the full pathway of
formal education. Although non-formal education in
this context may simply mean an alternative of basic
education (Rogers, 2004), the message here is that it
could be used by educational policy-makers as a lens
to formulate a wide range of educational activities for
out-of-school population to meet the EFA goals.
Meanwhile, Fordham (1980) and Robinson-Pant
(2016) put emphasis on the significance non-formal
education as a development strategy, especially for
rural areas. Non-formal education is seen to be more
relevant to the needs of the population in rural areas
working in the agricultural sector, since it aims at
improving their basic level of self-sufficiency
farming and their standards of nutrition and general
health (Fordham, 1980; Robinson-Pant 2016).
Furthermore, rural areas will receive more benefits
from non-formal education because in the great
majority of developing countries, they represent the
“pockets” of under-development with a large number
of out-of-school population (Coombs et al., 1973;
UNESCO, 2015).
From gender perspectives, it is also important to
note that non-formal education could function as a
means of empowering disadvantaged women. For
example, a case study in Ghana (Badu-Nyarko and
Zumakpeh, 2013) found that after participating in
non-formal education programmers, 180 women in
Nowodli district admit to have better self-esteem,
self-confidence and courage to stand up against
domestic violence. Meanwhile, effective literacy
programmers for women in 18 countries point out to
a common understanding that literacy is the
foundation of lifelong learning, especially for
marginalised women, that may lead to influence
children’s education, economic development, health
and civic engagement (UIL, 2013).
Taking Indonesia as an example, the paper
explores why and how non-formal education is able
to support its educational improvement.
5 INDONESIA AND NON-
FORMAL EDUCATION
Indonesia is the biggest archipelagic country in the
world with more than 17 thousand islands scattered
throughout over both sides of the equator (MoEC,
2015). Indonesia is inhabited by more than 255
million people, making it become the fourth most
populous country in the world after China, India and
the U.S.A (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2016a). The
country has 34 provinces, 514 cities/municipalities
and 81,626 villages, enriched with over 300 ethnic
groups and 680 native languages spoken throughout
the nation (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2016b).
In the education sector, today, Indonesia is ranked
as having the fourth largest public school system in
the world with the learner coverage of close to 50
million from primary to secondary education (MoEC,
2015). In addition, by 2015, Indonesia has been
successful in reaching more than 90 per cent
threshold of literacy rate, turning it from
approximately 3 per cent in 1945 (MoEC, 2015;
UNESCO, 2016). The success led the country to
receive UNESCO King Sejong Literacy Award in
2012, an international recognition for high
commitment and efforts in fighting against illiteracy
(UNESCO, 2012). By these achievements,
Indonesian government claim that the country has
met the EFA and Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs’) targets for primary and literacy education.
Also, it is claimed that gender equality in all types and
levels of education is close to be accomplished
(MoEC, 2011).
Despite its significant progress, it turns out that
there are at least 200 thousand pupils who drop out of
school every year in Indonesia (MoEC, 2015;
UNESCO, 2015). Although the primary and junior
secondary education Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER)
have shown significant improvement, 108 per cent for
the former and 100.72 per cent for the latter (MoEC,
2015), unfortunately there are over 4.4 million out of
school population in Indonesia who remain excluded
from education for the last 6 years (TNP2K, 2016).
Other international reports continue to exacerbate
the disappointing educational statistics in Indonesia.
UIS literacy database (2016) mentions that despite
being able to reach 90 per cent threshold in literacy
rate, the number of illiterate population in Indonesia
remains high by reaching more than 8 million youth
and adults. In contrast, the Indonesian government
claim that by the end of 2014 the country only has 5.9
million illiterate population or equal to 3.7 per cent
illiteracy rate (MoEC, 2015). Both statistics are
precise, yet the age group used by the Indonesian
government is 15-59 years old, while UIS use 15+
years.
Another international report, Progress
International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) in
2011, shows that Indonesian students’ reading
competence is low. Indonesia ranks 45 out of 48
countries on reading skills (IEA, 2012). In line with
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
22

this finding, a recent study in 2016, The World's Most
Literate Nations, places Indonesia third from the
bottom of 61 countries for its “literate behavior
characteristics” (Miller, 2016). Finally, the latest
Programmed for International Student Assessment
(PISA) 2015, shows that Indonesia ranks 66 out of 72
countries in reading as well as one of the low 9
countries from the bottom in Mathematics and
science (OECD, 2016); a result which is not much
different from the last achievement in PISA 2012
(OECD, 2014).
Besides the poor statistics as shown by several
international reports above, Indonesia also continues
to face geographic and socio-cultural barriers in
increasing its educational advancement. For example,
approximately 108 miles away to the west of Jakarta,
the Capital of Indonesia, there is a tribe called Baduy
or Badui with more than 11 thousand members who
firmly hold to ten traditional values Pikukuh Sapuluh
(Yulaelawati, 2012a). The values stressing on the
importance of living in harmony with the
environment are preserved from one generation to
another, and forbid the Baduy to practice “modern
lifestyles,” such as using chemical fertilisers for
farming, using transportation for commuting, and
attending schools to receive education (Yulaelawati,
2012a; Iskandar and Ellen, 2000). Yulaelawati
(2012a) explains that the Baduy believe that ‘school
or formal education for their children is against their
adat or traditional customs.’
There are other indigenous communities
throughout Indonesia with low access to as well as
interest in school. For instance, there are the nomadic
Bajo tribe in Sulawesi island who live based on
cultural beliefs and their former ancestors’ social
practices (Pilgrim, Cullen, Smith and Pretty, 2006),
the Kombay or Korowai tribe in West Papua Province
who live in tree houses with strong way of life to live
in harmony with the nature (Stasch, 2011), and the
Kajang tribe in Makassar city who are committed to
the ways of life and oral traditions of their ancestors
(Tyson, 2009). In addition to these tribes, by
geographical reason, a number of Indonesian people
also become indigenous. In total, there are 165
underprivileged, outer-front and border areas in
Indonesia with low access to education and high
illiteracy rate (BAPPENAS, 2015).
With its nature as a developing country, non-
formal education is a worth-considering learning
alternative to support Indonesian educational
improvement. Non-formal education offers flexibility
and various learning needs for people at any age and
background (Coombs and Ahmed, 1973; Romi and
Schmida, 2009; Yasunaga, 2014). In developing
countries, it also serves children and youth who never
had the opportunity to attend school, dropped out or
did not continue to the next level of education, and in
many occasions, has to start from teaching three R’s:
reading, writing and basic arithmetic (Coombs et al,
1973; Evans, 1981). Furthermore, in its
implementation, Yasunaga (2014) explains that non-
formal education activities could be adapted to the
learners’ needs in a wide range of conditions. In fact,
in Indonesian context, Yulaelawati (2012a) shows
that the experience in providing basic literacy
education to the Baduy tribe, who have strong
objection against schooling provision, was carried out
in “persuasive and non-confrontational” approach in
which non-formal education has that characteristic. It
is both persuasive and non-confrontational in the way
that, as Fordham (1980) and Romi and Schmida
(2009) put it, the process requires the learners to be
involved in determining the nature and content of the
educational activities based on their needs and
priorities.
Meanwhile in its organisation, non-formal
education is open to various stakeholders: religious
organisations, non-governmental organisations,
private enterprises, and public agencies (La Belle,
1981; UNESCO, 2015). In fact, Evans (1981) and
UNESCO (2015) confirm that non-formal education
activities have been mainly developed, provided and
sponsored by non-governmental sector. As an asset
for the organisation and delivery of non-formal
education activities throughout the country, Indonesia
has various community-based learning institutions.
For example, Community Learning Centres (CLCs) –
institutions providing mostly free-of-charge learning
activities for all ages – have increased significantly in
quantity from time to time: 815 units in 1999 to 9,800
units in 2015 (MoEC, 2015). There are also 19,969
courses and training institutions catering at least 3.5
million unemployed youth through professional-work
training and courses, such as language, tourism,
handicraft, electronics, automotive, etc. (ibid).
Besides, Indonesia has a wide range of non-
governmental and religious organisations that have
cadres at the grass-root level and have expertise in
providing voluntary activities to marginalised and
disadvantaged population (MoEC, 2011).
The educational statistics, the nature of Indonesia
as a developing country, and experience in catering
the underprivileged lead to the final question: what
are the implications for Indonesian educational
leaders?
Fulfilling Individual Right to and Need of Education - A Note to Remember for Indonesian Educational Leaders
23

6 IMPLICATIONS FOR
INDONESIAN EDUCATIONAL
LEADERS
It is widely believed that leadership plays a
significant role in creating change to educational
institutions and learning outcomes. Leithwood (2007,
p.46) states that ‘leadership serves as a catalyst for
unleashing the potential capacities that already exist
in the organisations,’ including pupil learning. In the
same way, a meta-analysis of a published research
carried out by Robinson in 2007 shows that, ‘the
closer leaders are to the core business of teaching and
learning, the more likely they are to make a difference
to students’ (Robinson 2007, p.21). However, since
there is an orthodoxy that equates education with
school as mentioned in advance, there exists what
Hodgkinson (1993, p.21 in Day, Harris, Hadfield,
Tolley and Beresford 2000, p.7) refers to as ‘a swamp
of literature in [school] leadership.’ As a result,
literature addressing effective leadership in non-
formal education settings is scarce (Etling, 1994;
1998).
In order to provide succinct explanation on the
implications of non-formal education towards
Indonesian educational leaders, the notion of non-
formal education needs to be viewed as a policy in
addition to the three categories of its function
explained earlier. By seeing it as a policy, the paper
will be able to see educational leaders in the broad
context and layered settings, and hence, avoid
equating educational leadership with principalship. In
examining non-formal education as a policy, this
paper adapts Bell and Stevenson’s framework for
policy analysis (2006), and puts it into practice in
Indonesian context. The framework consists of four
dimensions as follows:
 socio-political environment: the context in
which policy begins to be framed by key
ideological debates and policy issues;
 governance and strategic direction: policy
begins to emerge with more clarity through
policy parameters and priorities;
 organisational principles: policy is articulated in
organisational context; and,
 operational practices and procedure: policy is
enacted in the daily activities of those who work
in educational institutions.
In Indonesian context, the first dimension is best
represented by the academics. By law and as a
profession, academics refer to ‘the professional
educators and scholars whose tasks are to transform,
develop and disseminate science, technology, and arts
through education, research, and community service’
(Law Number 14/2005 on Teachers and Academics;
Government Regulation Number 37/2009 on
Academics). By referring to their professional duty as
mandated by the laws, as well as the number of
academics reaching more than 241 thousand people
with 3,496 higher education institutions spread across
the country (Ministry of Research, Technology and
Higher Education, 2016), it is safe to say that when
the academics do complete their tasks in education,
research and community service effectively, they
could play an important role in raising ideological
debates and policy issues of non-formal education on
the basis of robust academic- and evidence-based
research.
On the second dimension, governments at both
national and local levels are the ones responsible for
governance and strategic direction. Indonesian
governments are mandated to provide educational
services and guarantee the provision of quality
education for all Indonesian citizens without any
discrimination (Law Number 20/2003 on National
Education System). In order to realise this mandate,
since 2008, the Indonesian governments have
allocated education funding by at least 20 per cent
from the national/local budget (Constitutional Court
Decree Number 013/PUU-VI/2008). Unfortunately,
from year to year, the budget allocation dedicated to
serve out-of-school population, including the drop
outs, illiterates, indigenous communities, and job
seekers, or in this context the “non-formal education
sector”, receives less than 3 per cent out of the total
education budget managed by the MoEC, Republic of
Indonesia (MoEC, 2015).
Other than budgeting, Law Number 20/2003 on
National Education System states that the
governments are responsible to create a recognition
framework for all types of learning. Unfortunately, up
to this present moment, Indonesia does not have any
policy or framework to recognise, validate and
accredit ‘any learning gained through vocational or
other experience, usually through the award of credit’
like the one in the United Kingdom (UK) that is
known as “Recognition of Prior Experiential (or
informal) Learning” (The University of Nottingham,
2016). The framework is essential as there is a
growing awareness that much knowledge, skills and
traits are evidently learned more through non-formal
and informal means (Singh, 2016). Through such
framework, Singh (2016) argues that prior out-of-
school learning will be able to be recognised,
validated and accredited for many purposes:
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
24

licensing, employment, or credit in formal education,
and certification.
Educational institution leaders represent the third
dimension of the framework in Indonesian context.
They can be either school principals or non-formal
education administrators. School principals in
Indonesia are likely to face what Stevenson (2007)
regards as “right versus right” dilemmas. Stevenson
(2007, p.380) explains that, in English schools, but
not confined to, ‘school principals are faced with the
difficulty of creating caring and inclusive learning
environments in a context of high stakes testing and
the publication of school performance data.’ In this
context, principals’ personal and professional values
in formulating schools’ internal policy regarding
accepting all students regardless their social and
academic background versus selecting economically
stable and academically well-performed students is in
dilemma. In addition, since there are groups of
population in Indonesia that have culture specific
needs and characteristics, it is important for school
principals to have greater conceptual clarity in respect
of “culture” in order to exercise effective school
leadership (Dimmock and Walker, 2005). Although
there is no universal agreement on what it means, the
underlying idea of culture is that it portrays
heterogeneous values, norms and beliefs expressed
through thoughts and behaviours (Dimmock and
Walker, 2005, p.200). In relation to this, to be
effective, school principals need to take this
understanding into account, since there will be
probability for them to face students with both culture
specific needs and non-formal education background.
Etling (1994; 1998), on the other hand, argues that
‘effective leadership for non-formal education is not
the same as formal education.’ In non-formal
education settings, the staff are often people from
diverse formal training (oftentimes minimal), while
the learners are varied in age, learning objectives, and
understanding of curriculum (Frith and Reed 1982;
Etling, 1994). Considering these dimensions, Etling
(1994; 1998) suggests that authoritarian leadership
approach may cause problem, and in order to be
effective, leaders in non-formal education institutions
should be able to perform facilitator leadership: being
democratic, non-directive and ready to relinquish
leadership to the group.
On the last dimension, teachers are the ones
carrying out the operational practices and procedure
of the policy. To some extent, for those who have
worked as school teachers for a certain time with
experience in handling rather homogenous school-
age students, catering learners with non-formal
education background could be challenging. Romi
and Schmida (2009) explain that non-formal
education learners are used to: (i) flexibility in
changing the learning according to their needs; (ii)
learning process that is not restricted neither by time
nor location; (iii) learning that is carried out as a two-
way communication among participants; and, (iv)
learning for immediate application. Bearing this
diversity in mind, Etling (1994) explains that it is
important for teachers to have a consideration on the
learning approach and the importance of knowing
both “pedagogy” and “andragogy.”
Defined broadly, pedagogy represents “the
science of teaching” (Simon, 1999), while andragogy
refers to “the theory of adult learning” (Knowles,
1984). Simon (1999, p.39) explains that ‘the term
“pedagogy” itself implies structure…. the elaboration
or definition of specific means adapted to produce the
desired effect – such-and-such learning on the part of
the child. From the start of the use of the term,
pedagogy has been concerned to relate the process of
teaching to that of learning on the part of the child.’
Meanwhile, Knowles (1984) argues that there is a
need to develop a theory for adult learning, since
adults are self-directed and need to know why they
are learning something as they have experience as
well as readiness, orientation and motivation to learn.
Therefore, it is safe to say that in catering learners in
non-formal education settings, teachers need to
consider combining pedagogical and anagogical
approaches depending on the heterogeneity of
learners’ age.
7 CONCLUSIONS
There is a global orthodoxy that views education as a
fundamental human right. Voluminous documents
and agreement have been signed by educational
leaders across the globe as a symbol of legitimate
commitment that each person shall receive their right
in education. However, data show that there are
millions of out of school population and illiterate
youth and adults worldwide. Even when enrolled at
school, there are millions of children who are not
learning. Therefore, it is safe to say that schools alone
cannot be the only “vehicle” to provide quality
education for all. This is obvious because of at least
two reasons: first, education is a lifelong learning
process that does not equate with schooling; and
second, there are other categories of education from
where people could learn throughout life. Non-formal
education is a learning pathway that could be an
alternative for people at all background and ages to
gain access to education.
Fulfilling Individual Right to and Need of Education - A Note to Remember for Indonesian Educational Leaders
25

Although, as a concept and terminology, non-
formal education is contested, literature shows that it
has been part of all cultures throughout human
history, and its practices work and exist until today.
With no intention to compare and contrast, the
significance of non-formal education lies on the heart
that it can function as a complement, supplement and
replacement/alternative to formal education. Based
on these categories, it could be safely argued that non-
formal education could play an important role as a
means and strategy to fulfil individual right to and
need of education, develop and empower
disadvantaged population, including women, and
achieve the global goals in education.
Meanwhile, when referred to Indonesian context,
the country’s socio-cultural diversity, experience in
serving marginalised population, and educational
statistics show that non-formal education is a worth-
considering educational policy to boost its
educational improvement. After analysed with Bell
and Stevenson’s framework for policy analysis, it
turns out that it would take a collective effort from
Indonesian educational leaders in broad context and
different layers to provide research-based policy
discourses, academic-based policy parameters and
priorities, effective educational leadership, and
successful implementation of non-formal education.
REFERENCES
Apple, M. 1993. The Politics of Official Knowledge: Does
a National Curriculum Make Sense? Teachers College
Record, 95 2.: pp.222-241.
Badu-Nyarko, S., K., Zumakpeh, A., S., K. 2013. Non-
Formal Education for Change: The Case of Nadowli
Women in Ghana. American International Journal of
Social Science, [online] 2 2., pp.178–191.
Ball, S., J. 2003. The teacher's soul and the terrors of
performativity, Journal of Education Policy, 18:2, 215-
228.
BAPPENAS Indonesian Ministry of National Development
Planning. 2015. Daftar Daerah 3T 2015 List of
Underprivileged, Outer-Front and Border Areas.
[online]. Jakarta: BAPPENAS.
Bell, B., Stevenson, H. 2006. Editors’ Introduction:
Organizing Public Education. In Bell, B., Stevenson, H.
Eds. Organizing Public Education. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd. pp.xxiii-lxii.
Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J. C. 1977. Reproduction in
Education, Society and Culture. 2nd Edition. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications Inc.
Brian, S. 1999. Why No Pedagogy in England? In Leach,
J., Moon, B. Eds. Learners and Pedagogy. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press, pp.34-44.
Brennan, B. 1997. Reconceptualizing non-formal
education. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
[online] 16 3.: pp.185-200.
Bukova, I. 2014. The Right to Education for all Children
[online]. Bulgaria: UNICEF Bulgaria.
Central Bureau of Statistics 2016a. Statistics Yearbook of
Indonesia 2015 [online]. Jakarta: BPS.
Central Bureau of Statistics 2016b. Population Projection
by Single Age and Specific Age Group 2010 -2035
[online]. Jakarta: Indonesia.
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., Malcolm, J. 2003. Informality
and Formality in Learning. c London: Learning and
Skills Research Centre.
Coombs, P. H. 1985. The World Educational Crisis: the
view from the eighties. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Coombs, P., Ahmed, M. 1973. Attacking Rural Poverty:
how nonformal education can help. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Coombs, P. H., Prosser, C., Ahmed, M. 1973. New Paths to
Learning for Rural Children and Youth. New York:
International Council for Educational Development.
Coombs, P. H. 1968. The World Educational Crisis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., Beresford, J.
2000. The changing face of headship, in K. Leithwood,
C. Day Eds.. Leading Schools in Times of Change
Toronto: Springer., pp.6-24.
Dimmock, C., Walker, A. 2005. Educational Leadership:
Culture and Change. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Council of Europe 2006. The Right to Education Under the
European Social Charter [online]. London: Council of
Europe.
Etling, A. 1994.. Leadership For Nonformal Education.
Journal of International Agricultural and Extension
Education, Vol. 11., pp. 16-24.
DOI:10.5191/jiaee.1994.01103.
Etling, A. 1998.. Building A Paradigm Of Nonformal
Education Administration: Focus On Competencies.
Journal of International Agricultural and Extension
Education, Vol. 53., pp. 61-64.
DOI:10.5191/jiaee.1998.05308.
European Commission 2001. Communication: making a
European area of lifelong learning a reality [online].
Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Farrell, J., Hartwell, A. 2008. Planning for successful
alternative schooling: A possible route to Education for
All. Planning for successful alternative schooling: A
possible route to Education for All. Paris: IIEP.
Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Harmondsworth: Penguin
Fordham, P. 1980. Participation, Learning and Change:
Commonwealth approaches to non-formal education.
London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Frith, M., Reed, H.B. 1982. Lifelong learning manual:
Training for effective education in organizations.
Amherst, MA: Community Education Resource Center,
School of Education, University of Massachusetts.
Government Regulation Number 37/2009 on Academics.
Jakarta: the Government of Indonesia.
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
26

Graham-Brown, S. 1991. Education in the Developing
World. Harlow: Longman.
Hoppers, W. 2006. Non-Formal Education and Basic
Education Reform: a conceptual review. [Online].
Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational
Planning.
Illich, I. D. 1971. Deschooling Society. London: Calders
and Boyar.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement IEA. 2012. PIRLS 2011 International
Results in Reading [online]. MA and Amsterdam: USA
and the Netherlands. Iskandar, J. and Ellen, R.F. 2000.
The Contribution of Paraserianthes Albizia. falcataria
to Sustainable Swidden Management Practices among
The Baduy of West Java. Human Ecology, [online]
281., pp.1–17.
Knowles, M. 1984.. Andragogy in Action. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
La Belle, T.J. 1981. An introduction to the non-formal
education of children and youth. Comparative
Education Review, [online] 253., pp.313–329.
Law Number 14/2005 on Teachers and Academics. Jakarta:
the Government of Indonesia.
Law Number 20/2003 on National Education System.
Jakarta: the Government of Indonesia.
LeCompte, M. D., Dworkin, A. G. 1991. Giving up on
School: Student Dropouts and Teacher Burnouts.
California: Corwin Press.
Leithwood, K. 2007. What We Know About Educational
Leadership. In Burger, J.M., Webber, C.F., Kleinck, P.
Eds. Intelligent Leadership: Constructs for Thinking
Educational Leaders pp. 41-66.. Dordrecht: Springer.
Miller, J. W. 2016. The World’s Most Literate Nations.
Connecticut: USA.
Ministry of Education and Culture MoEC., Republic of
Indonesia 2015. Indonesia: Educational Statistics in
Brief. Jakarta: Centre for Educational Data and
Statistics.
Ministry of National Education, Republic of Indonesia
2010. Improving literacy for all: A national movement
for empowering Indonesian community. Jakarta:
Indonesia.
Ministry of Education and Culture, Republic of Indonesia
2011. Empowering Women NGOs’ in Improving Adult
Female Literacy. [Online]. Jakarta: Ministry of
National Education.
Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education,
Republic of Indonesia 2016. Pangkalan Data
Pendidikan Tinggi Higher Education Data Portal..
[Online]. Jakarta: MRTHE.
OECD 2015. PISA 2015 Results in Focus [online]. PISA:
OECD Publishing.
OECD 2014. PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and
Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics,
Reading and Science Volume I, Revised edition,
February 2014. [online]. PISA: OECD Publishing.
Robinson-Pant, A. 2016. Learning knowledge and skills for
agriculture and improving rural livelihoods: Reviewing
the Field. [Online]. Paris: UNESCO.
Rogers, A. 2004. Non-Formal Education: Flexible
Schooling or Participatory Education?. Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong.
Romi, S., Schmida, M. 2009. Non-formal education: a
major educational force in the postmodern era.
Cambridge Journal of Education, [online] 39 2.,
pp.257-273.
Simon, B. 1985. Does Education Matter? London:
Lawrence and Wishart.
Singh, M. 2016. Global perspectives on recognising non-
formal and informal learning: Why recognition matters.
Technical and Vocational Education and Training:
Issues, Concerns and Prospects, [online] Vol. 21.
Stasch, R. 2011. The Camera and the House: The Semiotics
of New Guinea “Treehouses” in Global Visual Culture.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, [online]
531., pp.75–112.
Stevenson, H. 2007. A Case Study in Leading Schools for
Social Justice: When Morals and Markets Collide. In
Bell, B., Stevenson, H. Eds. Organizing Public
Education. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp.371-
385.
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The
Preamble to the Constitution p.1.
The University of Nottingham 2016. Recognition of Other
Learning previously APL.. [Online]. [Accessed 16
November 2016]. Available from:
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/academicservices/qualit
ymanual/studiesawayfromtheuniversity/recognitionofo
therlearning.aspx
Tight, M. 1996. Key Concepts in Adult Education and
Training. London, Routledge.
Tight, M. 2001. Key Concepts in Adult Education and
Training. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.
Tim Nasional Percepatan Penanggulangan Kemiskinan
National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty
Reduction. TNP2K. 2016. Data dan Indikator
Pendidikan Educational Data and Indicators.. [Online].
[Accessed 12 July 2013]. Available at:
http://www.tnp2k.go.id/id/data-indikator/mengenai-
data-indikator/ [Accessed 14 November 2016].
Tyson, A. D. 2009. Still Striving for Modesty: Land,
Spirits, and Rubber Production in Kajang, Indonesia.
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, [online]
103., pp.200–2015.
UNESCO 2016. Implementing the Right to Education
[online]. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO 2015. Education For All Global Monitoring
Report 2015 [online]. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO 2015. Incheon Declaration Education 2030:
Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and
lifelong learning for all [online]. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO 2012. The winners of the UNESCO International
Literacy Prizes 2012 [online]. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO 2000. The Dakar Framework for Action,
Education for All: Meeting our Collective
Commitments [online]. Paris: UNESCO.
Fulfilling Individual Right to and Need of Education - A Note to Remember for Indonesian Educational Leaders
27

UNESCO 1990. World Declaration on Education For All
and Framework For Action to Meet Basic Learning
Needs [online]. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO 1972. Learning to be: The World of Education
today and tomorrow, a report submitted by the
International Commission on the Development of
Education chaired by Edgar Faure [online]. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning UIL. 2016. The
Third Global Report on Adult Education and Learning
GRALE III. [online]. Hamburg: UIL.
UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning UIL. 2013.
Literacy Programmes with a focus on women to reduce
gender disparities: Case studies from UNESCO
Effective Literacy and Numeracy Practices Database
LitBase. [online]. Hamburg: UIL.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics UIS. 2016. UIS literacy
database for SDG 4.6. [Online]. [Accessed 12
December2016]. Available from:
http://uis.unesco.org/country/id
UNESCO Institute for Statistics and Education for All
Global Monitoring Report EFA GMR. 2014.. Progress
in getting all children to school stalls, but some
countries show the way forward [online]. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics UIS. 2012. The
International Standard Classification of Education
2011 [online]. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for
Statistics.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics UIS., United Nations
International Children’s Emergency Fund UNICEF.
2015. Fixing the Broken Promise of Education for All:
Findings from the Global Initiative on Out-of-School
Children [online]. Montreal: UIS.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics UIS. 2012. The
International Standard Classification of Education
2011 [online]. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for
Statistics.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. [Online].
proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in
Paris on 10 December 1948 General Assembly
resolution 217 A.. Available at:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_
Translations/eng.pdf [Accessed 16 October 2016].
Yulaelawati, E. 2012a. Literacy and Peace Education:
Persuasive and Non-Confrontational Approach of
Literacy for Baduy Ethnic. [Online]. Jakarta: Ministry
of Education and Culture.
Yulaelawati, E. 2012b. Policy, Legislation and
Implementation of Community Learning Centres in
Indonesia. [Online]. Jakarta: Ministry of Education and
Culture.
Yasunaga, M. 2014. Non-Formal Education as a Means to
Meet Learning Needs of Out-of-School Children and
Adolescents. [Online]. Paris: UNESCO.
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
28