school to work transition

School-to-work transition generally refers to the critical socio-economic life changing period between approximately 15 to 24 years of age – a period when young individuals develop and build skills, based on their initial education and training that helps them become productive members of the society. Some of the most immediate economic considerations of this period in a young person’s life include issues related to education and skills development, unemployment and inactivity, job search, labor market entry and segmentation, occupational matches, stable employment and adequate income. Analyzing the transition from school to work is quite intricate because many young people begin employment while in school, migrate out of their communities, perform casual or unpaid work, or are easily discouraged from job searching. In addition there are multiple pathways for acquiring skills and furthering education including different institutional set ups, such as age of compulsory education, tracking into general and technical streams and formal and informal mechanisms of skills development.

The World Development Report 2007: Development and the Next Generation (WDR 2007) presents a comprehensive approach of life transitions into the challenges of adulthood, it focuses on the five major transition faced by youth including, learning for life, transitioning to work, healthy adolescence, forming families, and exercising citizenship. The report outlines the need to broaden opportunities available to young individuals, develop their capabilities and need to offer second chances to those who fail to make the right choices the first instance. The WDR recommends creating country specific comprehensive youth policies which are integrated into national policies; giving youth a voice and decision-making power; and, rigorously evaluating what policies and programs work for youth in particular country contexts.

holiday

By Rebecca VanderMeulen

Looking for a holiday gift your college student will love all year round? We sat down with the experts to find out what college kids really want nowadays.

Sarah Schupp, founder of University Parent, says that "flexibility and convenience are really important." Students are home for a short time, so buy your gifts from stores that also have locations close to their college home, so they’re easier to return or exchange. If all else fails, “buy a gift card,” says Marjorie Savage, author of the college advice book “You're on Your Own (But I'm Here If You Need Me)”. “They're even easy to purchase online.”

Here are eight fail-proof gift ideas for that special college student in your life:

1. Electronics There’s always something new on the market that will please kids. Tablet computers are great for taking notes and catching up on TV shows. Noise-cancelling headphones drown out a roommate's loud music when trying to study. Portable music players add an energizing soundtrack to sessions at the gym. And of course, cell phones are indispensible. If you’re giving an electronic, write down the product registration number in case you don’t receive or lose it en route.

2. Clothing Clothes are usually the unwanted gift, but that changes once kids start college. “Many students at the University of Minnesota email their parents photos of the jeans or shirts they want,” says Savage. “A lot of them ask for warmer coats during the winter.”

3. School Swag Students love clothes and gear from the college bookstores and student stores. “Be sure to buy from the bookstore's website so your child can return your gift if it doesn’t fit,” says Schupp.

making time for teacher pro

Making Time for Teacher Professional Development

Author: Ismat Abdal-Haqq
Date: 1995

Does professional development for teachers have a place in school improvement?

For many years, teachers and other educators have used district-sponsored staff development or university course work to improve individual skills, qualify for salary increases, and meet certification requirements. Professional development rewarded educators with personal and professional growth, greater job security, and career advancement. Schools benefitted primarily at the classroom level through whatever added value the learning experience gave to an individual teacher's practice. However, in recent years we have seen growing appreciation for the potential impact of professional development on the overall school, not just individual classrooms.

Awareness of professional development's value in advancing school improvement is evident in several state and national reports, as well as in research reports on school restructuring initiatives. The 1994 National Education Commission on Time and Learning (NECTL) report, Prisoners of Time, indicates that what teachers are expected to know and do has increased in amount and complexity. A National Governors' Association report (Corcoran, 1995) notes that systemic reforms place many demands on teachers improving subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical skills; understanding cultural and psychological factors that affect student learning; and assuming greater, and in some cases new, responsibilities for curriculum, assessment, outreach, governance, and interagency collaboration. In an Indiana Department of Education report, Bull, Buechler, Didley, and Krehbiel (1994) point out that meeting these demands may be particularly stressful for America's aging teaching force, which averages 14.5 teaching years. For the most part, these teachers received their training at a time when teaching did not routinely require many of the skills that are needed to function effectively in restructured schools. Redefinition of teacher work has led to reconceptualizing professional development and to increased regard for its role in many quarters, particularly when large-scale systemic reform initiatives are launched (Kentucky Education Association, 1993).

Teachers, researchers, and policymakers consistently indicate that the greatest challenge to implementing effective professional development is lack of time. Teachers need time to understand new concepts, learn new skills, develop new attitudes, research, discuss, reflect, assess, try new approaches and integrate them into their practice; and time to plan their own professional development (Cambone, 1995; Corcoran, 1995; Troen & Bolles, 1994; Watts & Castle, 1993). Cambone (1995) points out that teachers, as adult learners, need both set-aside time for learning (e.g., workshops and courses) and time to experience and digest new ideas and ways of working.

This Digest outlines what research and best practice tell us about effective professional development for teachers working in restructured, learner-centered schools. It considers the implications of traditional scheduling patterns for implementating effective professional development and shares some approaches that various schools and districts have taken to finding time for professional development.

What are some characteristics of effective professional development?

Effective professional development addresses the flaws of traditional approaches, which are often criticized for being fragmented, unproductive, inefficient, unrelated to practice, and lacking in intensity and follow-up (Bull et al., 1994; Corcoran, 1995; Professional Development, 1994). Effective professional development:

• is ongoing;
• includes training, practice, and feedback; opportunities for individual reflection and group inquiry into practice; and coaching or other follow-up procedures;
• is school-based and embedded in teacher work;
• is collaborative, providing opporunities for teachers to interact with peers;
• focuses on student learning, which should, in part, guide assessment of its effectiveness;
• encourages and supports school-based and teacher initiatives;
• is rooted in the knowledge base for teaching;
• incorporates constructivist approaches to teaching and learning;
• recognizes teachers as professionals and adult learners;
• provides adequate time and follow-up support; and
• is accessible and inclusive.

Do typical school schedules support effective professional development programs?

A major theme in Prisoners of Time (1994), the NECTL report, is that U. S. students and teachers are victims of inflexible and counterproductive school schedules. Professional development and collaboration generally must take place before or after school or in the summer, thus imposing on teachers' personal time; during planning or preparation periods, which cuts into time needed for other tasks; or on the limited number of staff development days. Teachers who sacrifice personal time or preparation time often experience burn-out from trying to fulfill competing demands for their time.

Professional development has not been widely seen as an intrinsic part of making teachers more adept and productive in the classroom (Watts & Castle, 1993); thus, school schedules do not normally incorporate time to consult or observe colleagues or engage in professional activities such as research, learning and practicing new skills, curriculum development, or professional reading. Typically, administrators, parents, and legislators view unfavorably anything that draws teachers away from direct engagement with students. Indeed, teachers themselves often feel guilty about being away from their classrooms for restructuring or staff development activities (Cambone, 1995; Raywid, 1993).

A number of researchers have contrasted this pattern with the approach found in foreign countries, particularly in China, Japan, and Germany where time for collegial interaction and collaboration are integrated into the school day (NECTL, 1994). For example, in many Asian schools, which generally have larger class sizes than U.S. schools, teachers teach fewer classes and spend 30-40% of their day out of the classroom, conferring with students and colleagues or engaged in other professional work. Donahoe (1993) suggests that such set-aside time is particularly important when significant school improvement plans are underway and advises states or school districts to formally establish "collective staff time," just as they set minimums for class time and teaching days.

How do schools and districts make more time for professional development?

In a study of regional and national innovative school groups, Raywid (1993) found three broad approaches to finding time for teachers to collaborate: (1) adding time by extending the school day or year, (2) extracting time from the existing schedule, and (3) altering staff utilization patterns. Given below are examples of the five types of time created for teacher development that Watts and Castle (1993) identified in a survey of schools involved in National Education Association initiatives.

• Freed up time-- using teaching assistants, college interns, parents, and administrators to cover classes; regularly scheduled early release days.
• Restructured or rescheduled time-- lengthening school day on four days, with early release on day five.
• Better-used time-- using regular staff or district meetings for planning and professional growth rather than for informational or administrative purposes.
• Common time-- scheduling common planning periods for colleagues having similar assignments.
• Purchased time-- establishing a substitute bank of 30-40 days per year, which teachers can tap when they participate in committee work or professional development activities.

Block scheduling can also make it easier to carve professional development time from the school day (Tanner, Canady, & Rettig, 1995). For example, Hackmann (1995) describes a middle school block schedule that frees one-fourth of the faculty to plan or engage in other professional work during each period of the day. At least one day a week, teachers in the Teaching and Learning Collaborative in Massachusetts have no teaching duties. They can use this Alternative Professional Time to pursue professional interests or alternative roles, such as writing curriculum, conducting research, supervising student teacher interns, or teaching college classes. This arrangement is facilitated by the presence of full-time teaching interns and team-teaching. (Troen & Bolles, 1994). Newer technologies, such as Internet and video conferencing, can give teachers access to instructional resources and collegial networks (Professional Development, 1994).

There may be opposition to some of the above mentioned strategies. Adding more pupil- free professional development days can be costly and may provoke opposition from financial managers or legislators. Cambone (1995) points out that schools do not exist in a vacuum, isolated from the larger community. Extending the school day and school year to accommodate more professional development time can upset parents' child care arrangements and family vacations. If schools remain open during the summer and teenagers are not free for summer jobs in places like amusement parks, the local economy can be affected and commercial interests may object to such a schedule change. School maintenance agendas, which often schedule big projects over the summer, may also be affected by extending the school year.

Perhaps the most formidable challenge to institutionalizing effective professional development time may be the prevailing school culture, which generally considers a teacher's proper place during school hours to be in front of a class and which isolates teachers from one another and discourages collaborative work (NECTL, 1994). It is a culture that does not place a premium on teacher learning and in which decisions about professional development needs are not usually made by teachers but by state, district, and building administrators. Paradoxically, implementing a more effective pattern of teacher professional development requires struggling against these constraints, but it may also help to create a school climate that is more hospitable to teacher learning.

References

References identified with an EJ or ED number have been abstracted and are in the ERIC database. References followed by an SP clearinghouse number were being processed at the time of publication. Journal articles (EJ) should be available at most research libraries; most documents (ED) are available in microfiche collections at more than 900 locations. Documents can also be ordered through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service: (800) 443-ERIC.

Bull, B., Buechler, M., Didley, S., & Krehbiel, L. (1994). Professional development and teacher time: Principles, guidelines, and policy options for Indiana. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center, School of Education, Indiana University. ED384112

Cambone, J. (1995). Time for teachers in school restructuring. Teachers College Record, 96(3): 512-43. EJ505811

Corcoran, T. C. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association. ED384600

Donahoe, T. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time, and culture in school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan 75(4): 298-305. EJ474290

Hackmann, D. G. (1995). Ten guidelines for implementing block scheduling.Educational Leadership, 53(3): 24-27.

Kentucky Education Association, & Appalachia Educational Laboratory. (1993).Finding time for school reform: Obstacles and answers. Frankfort, KY: Author. ED359181

National Education Commission on Time and Learning [NECTL]. (1994).Prisoners of time.[Also available by gopher] Washington, DC: Author. ED366115

Professional development: Changing times. (1994). Policy Briefs, Report 4.Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. ED376618

Raywid, M. A. (1993). Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1): 30-34. EJ468684

Tanner, B., Canady, R. L., & Rettig, R. L. (1995). Scheduling time to maximize staff development opportunities. Journal of Staff Development, 16(4): 14-19. EJ522303

Troen, V., & Bolles, K. (1994). Two teachers examine the power of teacher leadership. In D. R. Walling (Ed.), Teachers as leaders. Perspectives on the professional development of teachers (pp. 275-86). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. ED379283

Watts, G. D., & Castle, S. (1993). The time dilemma in school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan 75(4): 306-10. EJ474291

teaching view

Classroom Teacher as Teacher Educator

Author: Holly M. Bartunek
Date: 1989

The culture of schools historically isolates the teacher in the classroom. The desire for increased and varied responsibility within the teaching field has traditionally been accomplished by leaving the classroom and advancing into an administrative role. That, however, is not always the desire of the career teacher. Opportunities to expand the teaching role while remaining a classroom teacher are achievable through a staff development program that recognizes adult learning and development stages and capitalizes upon the classroom teacher as a teacher educator. This concept is recognized and supported through career stage development activities advocated in various reform reports including the Holmes Group report, "Tomorrow's Teachers" and the Carnegie Task Force report, "A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century."

COMPETENCIES AND ROLES

The classroom teacher who is a school-based teacher educator (SBTE) can be responsible for preservice, inservice, or continuing education at a school or district level, while maintaining a primary work location in the elementary or secondary classroom. Teachers in this role have the potential for enhancing faculty morale by responding to both the professional and personal development needs of the faculty and by utilizing other teachers as resources within the designed program. Critical skills needed by the SBTE include interpersonal ease; group facilitation; educational content; initiative taking; rapport building; support, confrontation, collaboration, diagnosing, and demonstration abilities (Saxl, Lieberman, Miles, 1987).

The SBTE program possibilities are as broad or as narrow as the needs of the school, the school culture, and the developmental stages of the teachers. Teacher needs have been addressed most recently through the career lattice model. This model (Christensen, McDonnell, & Price, 1988) views a teacher's career as moving within a cycle which includes the stages of "preservice," "induction," "competency building," "enthusiastic and growing," "career frustrations," "stable and stagnant," "career wind-down," and "career exit." These stages are dynamically influenced, either singularly or in combination, by personal environmental factors such as family demands, crises, cumulative experience, and individual dispositions; and by organizational environmental factors such as societal expectations, administrative style, regulations, and union guidelines. Collaborative planning between the SBTE and the administration, which recognizes the unique personal and institutional needs of teachers and the school, nurtures the total school culture.

Adapting and maintaining the following suggested guidelines contributes to the success of an SBTE program. First, the SBTE should be identified on the basis of competence (taking into account the skills needed) and not simply by position or years of teaching. Second, the SBTE should be familiar with or receive additional education in adult learning and development. Third, the SBTE should be familiar with the current research in teaching and related areas. Fourth, the administration should revise the job description of the SBTE to reflect the additional responsibilities added to the ongoing teaching schedule. Fifth, the administration should make arrangements for the SBTE to have needed time to prepare and deliver the agreed upon program. Sixth, the administration and the SBTE should recognize that use of additional, outside resource personnel (i.e., speakers, peer coaches) may be appropriate to implement the professional development program successfully (Wu, 1987).

SBTE MODELS

A wide range of programs which benefit from using the classroom teacher as teacher educator can be designed. The following descriptions illustrate four examples of SBTE programs.

Mentorship programs are rooted in the belief that adults have the capacity for continued growth and learning, and that this development can be influenced by specific types of interventions which both support and challenge (Levine, 1989). A mentor relationship supports the teacher who is new to the profession, district, building, grade level, or subject matter. The mentor, who must now articulate second-nature, unconscious teaching behaviors to another, brings these effective teaching skills to a renewed level of awareness. "This re-examination and reassessment, combined with the exposure to new ideas in subject matter pedagogy and effective teaching research often brought by the beginning teacher, stimulates professional growth on the part of the mentor as well" (Louchs-Horsley, Harding, Arbuckle, Murray, Dubea, & Williams, 1987, p. 90).

A Resident Supervisor's Program has been initiated in the Master of Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.) program at National-Louis University in Evanston, Illinois. This SBTE program provides alternative leadership roles and educational experiences for the classroom teacher selected as the resident supervisor. A permanent substitute assigned to the resident supervisor's classroom assumes teaching responsibilities while the SBTE interacts with the cooperating teachers and the student teachers; attends college-based meetings; develops the supervision skills of the cooperating teachers; and assists in presentations to preservice teacher education classes. In addition to the regular district salary, the resident supervisor receives a small stipend per student and travel expenses for supervision and meetings (Christensen, 1989).

The Regional Staff Development Center supplements the professional development of the educational community of Kenosha and Racine counties in Wisconsin, and provides the classroom teacher with the specialized leadership roles of center associate, program coordinator, and mentor. A center associate is an experienced classroom teacher who takes a one-year leave of absence from the classroom to work full-time at the center monitoring on-going programs, developing group facilitation skills, writing grants, and producing a monthly newsletter. In addition, the associate identifies and facilitates the successful accomplishment of a self-chosen professional development plan which might include "national and/or regional conference participation, credit courses, team teaching with a college faculty member, supervising student teachers, [and] conducting research" (Letven & Klobuchar, 1990, p. 9). A program coordinator is a full-time classroom teacher who, for a stipend, organizes and facilitates the after-school networking activities of faculty members from local school districts and higher education institutions who share a discipline interest. Mentors serve to induct beginning teachers into the culture of the school and into the teaching profession, and receive pay or time trade-offs.

The Fort Worth Independent School District in Texas (Leggett & Hoyle, 1987) concluded that inservice follow-up through peer coaching would help teachers adopt new teaching behaviors and strategies. Sixteen mastery learning specialists, who continue to teach at least two classes per day, are responsible for workshop scheduling, arranging for substitute teachers, providing the peer coaching and other related training, monitoring the coaching process, and providing feedback within the coaching process. To transition peer coaching into an ongoing component of the everyday life of the school, the mastery learning specialist assists in forming permanent building-based coaching teams who "choose their own goals for coaching and who coach each other at regular, frequent intervals throughout the year" (p. 20).

CONCLUSION

Restructuring the role of the classroom teacher as a teacher educator to facilitate the expansion of professional skills, is reflective of the dynamic nature of adult development. There is diversity among experienced classroom teachers in their career stages and in the personal and professional characteristics they bring to the classroom. What is appropriate for one teacher as an incentive for professional growth may not be appropriate for another teacher. Therefore, options and alternatives for staff development that are consistent with the realities of teacher career stages will lead to the greater professionalization of the teacher (Christensen et al., 1988). Opening an avenue of teacher growth through school-based teacher education, the classroom teacher is provided the opportunities to promote and support peer teacher growth, to experience empowerment by facilitating local change, to assume a leadership role without relinquishing the classroom, and to develop teaching behaviors which blend clinical skills with practitioner-translated research and theory. This revitalization of the teaching role with new responsibilities benefits the schooling process and its participants, and is achievable when the classroom teacher becomes a teacher educator.

REFERENCES

References identified with an EJ or ED number have been abstracted and are in the ERIC database. Journal articles (EJ) should be available at most research libraries; documents (ED) are available in ERIC microfiche collections at more than 700 locations. Documents can also be ordered through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service: (800) 227-3472. For more information contact the ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 293-2450.

Christensen, J. C. (1989). Resident supervisor handbook, Evanston, IL: National-Louis University.

Christensen, J. C., McDonnell, J. H., & Price, J. R. (1988). Personalizing staff development: The career lattice model. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Education Foundation. ED 299 260

Leggett, D., & Hoyle, S. (1987, Spring). Peer coaching: One district's experience in using teachers as staff developers. Journal of Staff Development, 8 (1), 16-20. EJ 356 224

Letven, E., & Klobuchar, J. K. (1990). The regional staff development center. Kenosha, WI: Regional Staff Development Center, UW-Parkside.

Levine, S. L. (1989). Promoting adult growth in schools: The promise of professional development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Loucks-Horsely, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea, C., & Williams, M. K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, MA: The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, and National Staff Development Council. ED 285 837

Saxl, E. R., Lieberman, A., & Miles, M. B. (1987, Spring). Help is at hand: New knowledge for teachers as staff developers. Journal of Staff Development, 8 (1), 7-11. EJ 356 222

Wu, P. C. (1987, Spring). Teachers as staff developers: Research, opinions, and cautions. Journal of Staff Development, 8 (1), 4-6. EJ 356 221

technology in teacher education

Technology in Teacher Education: Progress Along the Continuum

Author: Judy A. Beck and Harriet C. Wynn
Date: 1997

Introduction

Schools, colleges, and departments of education (SCDEs) may be placed along a continuum in their integration of technology. The 1995 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report, Teachers & Technology: Making the Connection, spoke to one end of the continuum when it raised two important points--that "technology is not central to the teacher preparation experience" and that "most technology instruction . . . is teaching about technology . . . not teaching with technology across the curriculum" (p. 165). However, the other end of the continuum has been captured by Pellegrino and Altman in the design dimensions outlined below. These dimensions illustrate "changing courses and changing thinking" and provide a conceptual framework to describe the work of Peabody College at Vanderbilt University (TN) in incorporating technology in teacher education:

The first design dimension . . . involves moving students from consumers and participant observers of technology-based learning applications to producers of content applications appropriate for their own teaching. . . . The second design dimension . . . involves the shift of technology applications from supplementary to central in a given course's learning activities. . . . The third design dimension. . . . represents a gradual and progressive increase in the sophistication and complexity of the technology-based applications that students experience in a course. In part, this dimension captures the fact that over the length of their teacher preparation program students mature in their own understanding and sophistication with respect to content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of technology. (1997, pp. 96-99)

This Digest will review preservice student and teacher education faculty use of technology and SCDE institutional capacity. Several examples of SCDE programs that have integrated technology into teacher education will be presented and factors supporting change will be highlighted.

A Snapshot of SCDE Integration of Technology

During the fall of 1996, a survey on technology was distributed to member institutions responsible for teacher education programs as part of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Joint Data Collection System. The study shows a number of positive aspects of the use and potential use of both basic and interactive information technologies within teacher education (Persichitte, Tharp, & Caffarella, 1997). While there is room for improvement in technology utilization, the idea that schools of education are technologically bankrupt is not supported. To the contrary, in student use, faculty use, and institutional capacity, SCDEs are moving forward and in some cases, leading the way.

Preservice Student Use of Technology
At 40% of the responding SCDEs (n=466; 63% return rate), students are required during the on-campus part of their program to design and deliver instruction incorporating various technologies. Students at another 50% of the SCDEs are required to demonstrate the use of at least one technology during their on-campus classes. At 28% of the SCDEs, students are required to design and deliver instruction that incorporates various technologies during the student teaching experience. Almost all institutions provide students accessibility to basic word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation programs. Students at 57% of the SCDEs, have access to the most advanced electronic technologies.

As the survey results indicate, trends for using technology in on-campus classes are positive. However, use of technology does drop off during student teaching. Schools of education have been encouraged to continue to identify and implement technology-rich instructional strategies within required preparation course work.

Faculty Use of Technology
Faculty members at 45% of the SCDEs responding regularly use computers, televisions, and VCRs as interactive instructional tools during class periods. Faculty members at another 53% occasionally use some technology to present information during class periods. In addition, 81% of SCDEs require students to use computer applications to complete assignments. Faculty use of e-mail is primarily to communicate within the SCDE (93% of institutions). However, at 67% of responding SCDEs, faculty use e-mail to communicate with colleagues at other institutions and to collaborate on projects.

These findings are encouraging as current literature continues to stress the importance of the use and modeling of multiple technologies by higher education faculty responsible for the preparation of future teachers. Faculty use technology to present information during class, to conduct research, and to communicate with their peers.

Institutional Capacity
At the time of the survey, 42% of the SCDEs responding had classrooms wired for the Internet. Fully 98% of the institutions reported that they have classrooms with televisions and videocassette recorders available for instructional purposes. In terms of planning, 55% of SCDE had budgeted a plan to purchase, replace, and upgrade a variety of educational technologies, while 38% had a plan but did not have a supporting budget.

The majority of preservice students have access to some advanced electronic technologies and software applications. SCDEs generally have well-equipped classrooms and their information infrastructure is generally part of a budget plan for purchase, replacement, and upgrades.

Programs Model Technology Integration

Three schools of education that have been identified as having implemented long-term efforts to integrate technology throughout their programs are Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia; College of Education and Human Services, Western Illinois University; and College of Education, Michigan State University (AACTE, 1998).

Curry School of Education, University of Virginia
In the mid-1980s the Curry School designated education technology as one strand for integration throughout the program with the goal of ensuring that preservice teachers will be prepared to integrate appropriate uses of educational technologies in their own teaching after graduation, and serve as leaders for other teachers. The school developed partnerships with local school divisions and state policy makers as essential elements in the work. Specific programs include TeacherLink, a regional telecommunications network; Public Education Network (PEN), one of the nation's first statewide K-12 Internet systems; CaseNET, a series of case-based courses on the World Wide Web; the Technology Infusion Project (TIP), pairing preservice teachers with local classroom teachers; and others. The Curry Educational Technology Center provides support and resources within the school (Curry School of Education, 1997).

College of Education and Human Services, Western Illinois University
The College of Education and Human Services, Western Illinois University, aided by remarkable success in achieving external and state funding, developed interactive multimedia laboratories, developed numerous electronic classrooms, established an instructional video lab and a faculty development lab, made use of compressed video to link to school districts, established a distance learning program with a middle school located 90 miles from campus, developed technology competencies for its teacher education program, redesigned the curriculum in 12 different courses, and employed instructional designers to assist faculty in course development (Smith, Barker, Baker, & Dickson, 1996).

College of Education, Michigan State University
The College of Education at Michigan State University designed its technology integration program to achieve four objectives: (1) to prepare a new generation of K-12 teachers who are able to use technology creatively and critically to enhance student leaning, (2) to prepare a new generation of teacher educators who are able to use and model the use of technology to enhance student learning, (3) to prepare a new generation of educational researchers who are able to investigate educational uses of technology, and (4) to support K-12 schools in their efforts to enrich student learning through the use of technology. Michigan State mobilized top graduate students to support teacher educators and teacher candidates in integrating technology in their teaching and learning and established unique laboratories to support research on teaching with technology. A technology exploration center, authentic assessment of technology competencies for teacher education students, and implementation of an educational technology certificate program are a few of the other components of the program (Michigan State University, 1997).

Support for Change

The OTA report cited "time, limited resources, faculty comfort level and attitudes, and little institutional encouragement for technology use" as barriers to a more integrated use of technology in SCDEs (1995, p. 187). A group of deans from teacher education institutions in the northeast cited a similar list in late 1997--with lack of funding leading the way. Of the 93% of responding institutions to the 1996 AACTE/NCATE survey that have plans for purchasing, replacing, and upgrading technology, only 55% have budgets for such actions. Up to this point, federal and state monies that have been made available for educational technology advancements and professional development have not been accessible to higher education. The E-Rate discounts do not apply to schools of education or their libraries. SCDEs are learning to make the case within their own institutions for technology-related funding and are forming partnerships and consortia to strengthen resources.

NCATE is in the process of revising its standards for implementation in the year 2000. Current unit standards reflect recommendations from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). New standards for the infusion of technology in teacher education programs and a vision for what skills and understandings graduating students should bring into the classroom will be a significant facet of the revisions (NCATE, 1997). As states require more capability with technology through licensing and certification standards, schools of education will align programs to produce new teachers able to meet those requirements.

Positive Movement on the Continuum

The National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, in its report What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future (1996), posed this challenge: "Schools of education . . . need to model how to teach for understanding in a multicultural context, how to continually assess and respond to student learning, and how to use new technologies in doing so" (p.77). America's schools, colleges, and departments of education are doing much more to meet that challenge than is commonly believed. The teachers of tomorrow are being prepared today in environments that increasingly are infused with technology, moving toward the reality of the 21st century.

References
References identified with an EJ or ED number have been abstracted and are in the ERIC database. Journal articles (EJ) should be available at most research libraries; most documents (ED) are available in microfiche collections at more than 900 locations. Documents can also be ordered through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (800-443-ERIC).

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1998). Best Practice: Innovative use of technology award. Press release. Washington, DC: Author.

Curry School of Education. (1997). The Curry School technology strand. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Michigan State University. (1997). Learning and teaching with technology. East Lansing: Author.

National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author. ED395931

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher. Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Washington, DC: Author.

Pellegrino, J. W., & Altman, J. E. (1997). Information technology and teacher preparation: Some critical issues and illustrative solutions. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 89-121.

Persichitte, K. A., Tharp, D. D., & Caffarella, E. P. (1997). The use of technology by schools, colleges, and departments of education: 1996. Unpublished manuscript, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.

Smith, B., Barker, B., Baker, , & Dickson, M. (1996). Tools for teaching with technology. The WIU approach to integrating technology into teacher education. Macomb, IL: Western Illinois Unviersity. ED404307

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers & technology: Making the connection. OTA-EHR-616. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. ED386155

A Guide to Organizations Involved with Licensing and Certification of Teachers and Accreditation of Teacher Education Programs

A Guide to Organizations Involved with Licensing and Certification of Teachers and Accreditation of Teacher Education Programs

Author: T.J. Oakes
Date: 1999

Accreditation of teacher education programs and the licensing and certification of teachers are three interrelated but very distinct processes. It is easy to confuse the functions that come under these three areas, particularly when some states use the terms accreditation, licensing, and certification interchangeably. They are key points along a continuum of teacher preparation. The ultimate goal of the processes is to ensure quality teaching. This digest seeks to clarify these three important processes and identify the primary national organizations involved in these areas.

Defining the Processes
Accreditation is an evaluation process that determines the quality of an institution or program using predetermined standards. Accreditation is normally carried out on a peer review basis by competent, nongovernmental agencies such as national, regional, and/or local associations. It is, in essence, a collegial activity conducted by institutions that have voluntarily organized to form and to support an accrediting association. These accrediting agencies or associations prepare standards for education institutions and subsequently apply these standards when evaluating individual institutions seeking accreditation.

Licensing is the process by which a governmental agency grants a license - or permission - to an individual who has met specified requirements. These requirements are usually minimal. Their purpose is to assure the public that the licensed individual will do no harm. In the case of licensing teachers, the intent is to prevent individuals from doing harm in the classroom.

Certification is the process by which a nongovernmental agency or association bestows professional recognition to an individual who has met certain predetermined qualifications specified by that agency or association. It can be described as peer approbation, similar to Board certification among medical doctors.

Organizations Involved in the Processes

Accreditation 
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
2010 Massachusetts, Ave., NW., Suite 500, Washington DC 20036-1023
Phone: (202) 466-7496; Fax: (202) 296-6620
www.ncate.org

Founded in 1954, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is a voluntary accrediting body, recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, that evaluates and accredits institutions for the preparation of elementary and secondary school teachers, school service personnel, and administrators. NCATE standards focus on the overall quality of the professional education unit. The unit may be the institution or college, school, department, or other administrative body within the institution that is primarily responsible for the initial and continuing preparation of teachers and other professional personnel (NCATE Standards Book, 1997). Standards are currently organized within four categories: (1) design of professional education - curriculum, delivery, and community; (2) candidates in professional education; (3) professional education faculty; and (4) the unit for professional education. Themes throughout the standards include the conceptual framework, diversity, intellectual vitality, technology, professional community, evaluation, and performance assessment. Performance-based standards are the key feature for NCATE 2000, which will emphasize candidate performance (Wise, 1998).

NCATE membership includes public and student representatives and representatives from teacher education institutions, teachers, policy makers, administrators, and specialists as well as subject-specific, child-centered, and technology organizations. Over 30 organizations - including the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards - comprise NCATE, and 46 states plus the District of Columbia participate in partnerships with NCATE.

NCATE sponsors several projects, including the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Technical Support Network, Professional Development School Standards Project, NCATE/NBPTS Partnership for Graduate Programs, and Technology Initiatives.

Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC)One Dupont Circle, Suite 320, Washington DC 20036-0110
Phone: (202) 466-7230; Fax: (202) 466-7238
www.teac.org

The Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) was developed in 1998 in response to a concern of the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC) that NCATE is the only national teacher education accreditation association, and it accredits less than half of the 1,260 institutions of higher education that offer teacher education programs (Basinger, 1998). TEAC was formally incorporated in 1997 and has petitioned the U.S. Department of Education for recognition.

The TEAC mission is to promote professional education programs in colleges and universities by recognizing those of the highest quality. It plans to develop an alternative accreditation process that relies on a continuing institutional self-examination reinforced by external audits. Four principles of quality are identified by TEAC: (1) student learning; (2) assessment of student learning; (3) institutional learning; and (4) institutional commitment. TEAC will audit the institutions' internal processes for assessing student learning and assist institutions in the continuous improvement of their teacher education programs. The institution will choose which standards it will use, and the academic audit will serve as an evaluation tool.

The governance of TEAC differs from that of NCATE. Rather than having professional associations appoint individuals to the governing board, individuals are elected by the member institutions. There are 51 candidate member institutions and 18 affiliate members (www.teac.org/members/,1999). About half of the members of the Board of Directors are either college presidents or deans or directors of teacher education programs. The other half are teachers, public officials who oversee education, representatives of national associations, and members of the general public.

Certification
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)
26555 Evergreen Road, Suite 400, Southfield MI 48076
Phone: (248) 351-4444; Fax: (248) 351-4170
www.nbpts.org

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) was created in 1987. Its membership includes teachers and state and local officials in the field of elementary and secondary education, and leaders from the business community and higher education. It seeks to strengthen the profession of teaching and thereby raise the quality of education. Its mission is to establish high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do; to develop and operate a national, voluntary system to assess and certify teachers who meet these standards; and to advance related education reforms for the purpose of improving student learning in American schools.

NBPTS hopes that advanced certification will act as a catalyst to transform teaching as a career by enabling states and schools to recognize outstanding teaching professionals, offer them better compensation, provide them with increased responsibilities, and place important decisions about teaching policy and practices in their hands. NBPTS is also concerned with education policy and reform issues such as teacher preparation recruitment (particularly among minorities) and the role NBPTS-certified teachers will play in schools. The standards grow out of a central policy statement: What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do. The NBPTS' five core propositions, outlined in the statement, are: (1) teachers are committed to students and their learning; (2) teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students; (3) teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning; (4) teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience; and (5) teachers are members of learning communities (NBPTS, 1994). Key components of this certification process are that candidates complete portfolios and participate in on-demand tasks at assessment centers.

Licensing
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)
One Massachusetts Ave. NW, #700, Washington DC 20001-1431
Phone: (202) 336-7048; Fax: (202) 408-8072
http://www.ccsso.org/intasc.html

The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) was established in 1987 by the Council of Chief State School Officers to enhance collaboration among states interested in rethinking teacher licensing and assessment for education professionals. In 1993, the consortium proposed model standards that described what beginning teachers should know and be able to do. These standards were drafted by representatives of the teaching profession and personnel from 17 education agencies. (www.ccsso.org, 1999). Currently 33 states are members of INTASC. The standards, applicable for beginning teachers of all disciplines and all levels, are compatible with the national teacher certification standards proposed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and are organized around 10 principles. An important attribute of the standards is that they are performance-based; according to the consortium, more emphasis is placed upon the abilities teachers develop rather than the hours they spend completing course work. These performance-based standards should enable states to have greater innovation and diversity in how teacher education programs operate by assessing outcomes rather than inputs or procedures.

Besides these model standards, which address the knowledge, dispositions, and performance of all teachers, INTASC is also developing subject-area standards for new teachers. These standards currently include English/language arts, mathematics, and science, with elementary, art, social studies, and special education in the development stage. The assessments that can be used to evaluate a new teacher's performance against these standards are being developed through the Performance Assessment Development Project, a program designed for the licensing of beginning teachers and includes the use of portfolios to determine licensing of candidates. INTASC is also developing a cadre of teachers, teacher educators, and state education staff who can implement the assessments in their states.

In addition, INTASC has contracted with Educational Testing Services (ETS) to develop the Test for Teaching Knowledge (TTK), which is based on the model standards. The TTK is a constructed-response test based on authentic situations facing beginning teachers. Pilot sessions were conducted in the spring of 1999. A field test will be conducted in 2000 (www.ccsso.org, 1999).

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)
Council of Chief State School Officers
One Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 700, Washington DC 20001-1431
Phone: (202) 408-5505; Fax: (202) 408-8072
www.ccsso.org/isllc.html

Established in 1995, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) was organized by the Council of Chief State School Officers and operates in partnership with the National Board for Educational Administration. Similar to INTASC, it is a consortium of states and associations formed to develop model standards and assessments for school leaders. Membership includes representatives of state agencies/departments of education, professional standards boards, and major educational leadership associations.

Conclusion
The processes of accreditation, licensing, and certification are intended to complement each other, with a goal of assuring a system of quality in the practice of teaching. In general, accreditation provides quality control and consumer protection at the institutional level in preservice preparation; licensing provides quality control and consumer protection with individual candidates; and certification provides recognition for accomplished practitioners through continuing professional development. Like many areas of education, the system is still evolving.

References
Basinger, J. Fight Intensifies Over Accreditation of Teacher Education Programs, The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 1998).

The Council of Independent Colleges, Foundation for an Innovative Accreditation System (1998).

The Council of Chief State School Officers, Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue (1992).

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, What Teachers Should Know and Be Able To Do (1994).

The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Standards Procedures and Policies for the Accreditation of Professional Education Units(1997).

Wise, A. Quality Teaching (Spring 1998), The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Web sites:

The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium,www.ccsso.org/intasc.html
The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium,www.ccsso.org/isllc.html
The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,www.nbpts.org
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,www.ncate.org
The Teacher Education Accreditation Council, www.teac.org

Teacher Mentoring: A Critical Review

Teacher Mentoring: A Critical Review

Author: Sharon Feiman-Nemser
Date: 1995

Mentoring is a critical topic in education today and a favored strategy in U.S. policy initiatives focused on teacher induction. Besides creating new career opportunities for veteran teachers, assigning mentors to work with beginning teachers represents an improvement over the abrupt and unassisted entry into teaching that characterizes the experience of many novices. Still, the promise of mentoring goes beyond helping novices survive their first year of teaching. If mentoring is to function as a strategy of reform, it must be linked to a vision of good teaching, guided by an understanding of teacher learning, and supported by a professional culture that favors collaboration and inquiry. This Digest examines the spread of mentoring in the United States, obstacles to realizing the potential of mentoring as a vehicle of reform, needed research, and selected issues of policy and practice.

The Spread of Mentoring

Since the early l980s, when mentoring burst onto the educational scene as part of a broad movement aimed at improving education, policymakers and educational leaders have pinned high hopes on mentoring as a vehicle for reforming teaching and teacher education. Concerned about the rate of attrition during the first 3 years of teaching and aware of the problems faced by beginning teachers, policymakers saw the logic of providing on-site support and assistance to novices during their first year of teaching (Little, l990). The scale of mentoring has increased rapidly, with over 30 states mandating some form of mentored support for beginning teachers.

The mentoring idea has also been extended to the preservice level. Proposals for the redesign of teacher preparation (e.g., Holmes Group, l990) call for teacher candidates to work closely with experienced teachers in internship sites and restructured school settings such as professional development schools. The hope is that experienced teachers will serve as mentors and models, helping novices learn new pedagogies and socializing them to new professional norms. This vision of mentoring depends on school-university partnerships that support professional development for both mentors and teacher candidates.

A Cautionary Note

Enthusiasm for mentoring has not been matched by clarity about the purposes of mentoring. Nor have claims about mentoring been subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny. The education community understands that mentors have a positive affect on teacher retention, but that leaves open the question of what mentors should do, what they actually do, and what novices learn as a result. Just as research on student teaching highlights the conservative influence of cooperating teachers and school cultures on novices practice, so some studies show that mentors promote conventional norms and practices, thus limiting reform (e.g., Feiman-Nemser, Parker, & Zeichner, l993).

These findings should not surprise us. Mentor teachers have little experience with the core activities of mentoring--observing and discussing teaching with colleagues. Most teachers work alone, in the privacy of their classroom, protected by norms of autonomy and noninterference. Nor does the culture of teaching encourage distinctions among teachers based on expertise. The persistence of privacy, the lack of opportunities to observe and discuss each other s practice, and the tendency to treat all teachers as equal limits what mentors can do, even when working with novices (Little, l990).

In addition, few mentor teachers practice the kind of conceptually oriented, learner- centered teaching advocated by reformers (Cohen, McLaughlin, & Talbert, l993). If we want mentors to help novices learn the ways of thinking and acting associated with new kinds of teaching, then we have to place them with mentors who are already reformers in their schools and classrooms (Cochran-Smith, l991), or develop collaborative contexts where mentors and novices can explore new approaches together.

Needed Research

Before l990, the literature on mentoring consisted mainly of program descriptions, survey-based evaluations, definitions of mentoring, and general discussions of mentors roles and responsibilities. Researchers did not conceptualize mentors work in relation to novices learning or study the practice of mentoring directly. Reviewing the literature, Little (l990) found few comprehensive studies well-informed by theory and designed to examine in depth the context, content and consequences of mentoring (p. 297).

Since l990, some researchers have begun to fill in those gaps. In one comparison of two beginning teacher programs, researchers documented striking differences in the way mentor teachers conceived of and carried out their work with novices. They linked these differences in mentors perspectives and practices to differences in role expectations, working conditions, program orientations, and mentor preparation (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, l993). In a reform- oriented preservice program, Cochran-Smith (l991) studied the conversations of student teachers and experienced teachers in weekly, school-site meetings at four urban schools. She shows how these conversations, occasions for group mentoring, expose novices to broad themes of reform through discussions of highly contextualized problems of practice. Between l991-95, researchers at the National Center for Research on Teacher Learning at Michigan State carried out a comparative, cross-cultural study of mentoring in selected sites in the United States, England, and China. The study sought insights about learning to teach, mentoring practices, and the conditions that enable novices and mentors to work together in productive ways. Preliminary findings underscore the influence of mentors beliefs about learning to teach, the challenges of learning to teach for understanding, and the impact of different contextual factors (e.g., school culture, national policies) on mentors practice and novices learning.

To inform mentoring policy and practice, we need more direct studies of mentoring and its affects on teaching and teacher retention, especially in urban settings where turnover is high. We also need to know more about how mentors learn to work with novices in productive ways, what structures and resources enable that work, and how mentoring fits into broader frameworks of professional development and accountability.

maju indonesia 2012

PROBLEM INFRASTRUKTUR IN INDONESIA

Jakarta Traffic. Image: Edward H. Carpente

INDONESIA IS a country facing a unique set of opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, it was one of the best performing economies through the global economic crisis of 2008-2009, posting positive growth and actually reducing its public debt-to-GDP ratio. It’s currently on track to join the BRIC nations, but will need to show sustained economic growth of more than five percent annually to achieve this goal. And it looks like this will probably happen by 2015: the IMF expects growth to continue at about six percent through 2011, and increase to seven to eight percent in future years.Others are even more optimistic. Chairul Tanjung, chairman of Indonesia’s National Economic Forum, forecasts that the sprawling archipelago will become the world’s fifth largest economy in 2030. That would require a 10 percent annual growth rate, which some analysts, including Aris Ananta of Singapore’s Institute of South Asian Studies, find unrealistic. “With the exception of 1987,” he writes, “Indonesia never attained a growth rate of more than 9 percent.”

A milestone that Indonesia is likely to achieve this year is a US$3000 per capita income. That’s the threshold cited for the economic progress of other developing Asian economies such as China and South Korea – assumed to presage increased consumption of durable goods like refrigerators, televisions and air conditioners, along with automobiles, real estate, luxury goods, and tourism. But the per capita income metric, which is derived from a country’s GDP divided by number of inhabitants, can be a deceptive. One factor it masks is the disparate distribution of wealth in an economy – a relatively small number of very rich people compensate for a similarly high number of the very poor. A better indicator would be median actual income, but these numbers aren’t readily available from the Indonesian government’s Centre for Statistics. In several measures of the equality of wealth distribution, Indonesia ranks above many other countries including the United States, China, and Russia, so the fact that per capita GDP doesn’t consider this economic variable is less important here than in other developing countries. On the other hand, another factor masked by the use of average per capita income as a metric for economic progress is the effect of rising prices. Consider the case of Indonesia’s growth in the five years between 2004 and 2009, when the average per capita income jumped by US$1517, more than doubling from the 2004 baseline of US$1179 to US$2696 in 2009. Prices on consumer goods, however, also rose considerably during that period. Rice, for example, was more than twice as expensive in 2009 than it was in 2004. Adjusted for the rise in prices, the actual increase in average purchasing power was only US$194 – a significantly less impressive figure than that of the per capita income that Economic Minister Hatta Rajasa likes to tout as signs of progress.However it’s measured, Indonesia’s economy is demonstrating overall growth. It will likely continue to do so, but it is very much in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. This is due in large part to the lack of workable infrastructure, which does not satisfactorily address the current economy and will retard future economic growth. Jakarta alone is estimated to lose US$1.43 billion per year as a result of traffic congestion, according to a report released by the Presidential Work Unit for Development Monitoring and Control. Anoop Singh, the IMF’s Director for Asia & Pacific Investment, has stated “Public investment has been low by international standards. Roads and ports in particular need improvement.” He’s right. The trans-Sumatra highway which links the port at Bakauheni with the factories and plantations along the length of the narrow, mountainous island is reduced for long stretches to a narrow two lanes, pitted and cratered in many places so as to resemble a bombed-out runway. A continuous stream of giant, heavily laden trucks, passenger buses and swarms of overladen scooters labour to navigate the tortuous road.

Within the confines of large cities like Jakarta, it’s even worse. The roads, while better maintained, can’t handle the volume of cars, mini-buses, and the ubiquitous scooters (over five million of them) that carry workers in from the surrounding countryside. A lack of workable public transportation and often inefficient routing methods can transform a straight five km drive along a major road, into a twisting 30 minute route on a good day 90 minutes if it’s raining (as it does nearly every afternoon from October through May). Leave the roads and take to the air, and the problems continue. The international airport was designed to handle 22 million passengers per year;. That number has already grown to 30 million and is expected to increase by 15 percent annually.The Indonesian government desperately needs to take a page from China’s development manual, In 2002, the Chinese government, anticipating a similar rise of China’s per capita income to US$3000 in 2020, began building thousands of kilometres of new roads, modernizing mass transport systems, and building high speed rail lines and new airports. China hit the US$3000 per capita mark ahead of schedule in 2009, but the country was already prepared to handle the infrastructure burden of a swelling middle class and its increased demand for personal transportation, energy, and consumer goods. China’s demand for cars rose from one million to 13 million, but the infrastructure needed to accommodate it was already in place - ensuring that increased vehicle traffic contributed to rather than reduced national efficiency. Compare this to the situation in Indonesia, where despite the documented multi-billion dollar losses in productivity that result from current traffic congestion, the government is predicting that annual domestic vehicle use will increase by almost 30 percent in the next five years.The infrastructure problems in Jakarta, particularly, have become so severe that proposals are being considered to move the seat of government to a new location, likely in Kalimantan. Indonesian lawmakers tout such a move as a way to cure the capital’s congestion. Experts who have studied the effects of capital relocation projects in numerous other countries believe such a plan would have little effect, since Jakarta would remain the nation’s commercial hub. Rather than spend money on moving the government, the government must spend money to ensure that everything else moves more efficiently. That means revamping the existing TransJakarta bus system, improving the condition and quantity of passenger rail service throughout Indonesia, laying a trans-Sumatran rail line, completing the stalled Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) project, expanding and upgrading Soekarno-Hatta International Airport, and repairing and expanding highways throughout the large islands of Java, Sumatra, and Kalimantan. This type of construction won’t be cheap, but it will boost the economy in the short term by providing jobs, and in the long term by enhancing productivity. Improving broadband access outside of major cities is another important infrastructure improvement which the government communications giant TELKOMSEL can undertake (along with its commercial rival INDOSAT) to make it possible for more people to telecommute. Existing and planned business ventures should receive incentives to locate outside Jakarta, and to implement at least partial telecommuting for any employees who work in offices within the city.Curiously enough, the funding to jump-start such improvement initiatives looks like it will come from China itself, whose representatives signed a US$6.6 billion agreement for investments in roads, bridges, canals, and other infrastructure development. The timing of this agreement, coming just one day before the visit of US President Barack Obama was hardly coincidental. It proved that despite the fact that the former local boy could still charm the Indonesian people with recitations of fond childhood memories, the United States, Indonesia’s fifth largest trading partner in terms of total imports and exports, could only offer them warm words. China, poised to topple Japan as Indonesia’s number one trading partner, is able to offer cold, hard cash instead.

http://www.currentintelligence.net/features/2010/12/10/indonesias-infrastructure-problem.html