INDONESIA YOUTH GROUP: Outline Our view on social accountability Indonesian youth experiences: – Program 1: English debating community – Program 2: EduPlus Problems and challenges Conclusion

Social Accountability

English Debating Community Established in 2005 by Indonesia University of Education (UPI) Focus: educating and promoting English at schools Context: narrow-minded youth Objective: changing youth mindset, “penniless does not equal with powerless” Extended role: teaching English debate at vocational schools, establishing debate club at vocational and high schools, community service to teachers and students

Cont. Outcomes: – Inspiring teachers – Members are students with high GPA and they received scholarships and awards from various sources – Debate is now integrated into the campus curriculum (under English subject program) – Higher participation of high school students in English language competitions – Gained support and more involvement from university officials to the cause

Program 2: EduPlus Initiated in 2008 by the State College of Accounting English Club (STAN EC) Focus: motivating students to learn English Context: low human resources quality in English language Objective: changing students’ perception on the importance of English language as life skills that can improve their quality of living

Cont. Activities: socializing English language as a tool for daily conversation through interactive method e.g. games, outbound, and singing Program sustainability: 3 levels of program – 4 months introductory phase – 4 months implementation phase – 4 months evaluation phase

Problems and Challenges Funding Lack of social support Lack of human resources Different perceptions Cooperating with the government

Conclusion Strength of youth-initiated programs – It has more far reaching results i.e. acknowledgement from university officials, investment on human resources, raised university reputation, effects to larger society – Tangible results: higher motivation, trust from the community, youth becomes role models Weaknesses – The scope is small so it is less attractive for the government – Limited funding – Highly dependable on individual motivation