implementation of school-based management (sbm) in indonesia rita karam georges vernez jeffrey...
TRANSCRIPT
Implementation of School-Based Management (SBM) in Indonesia
Rita Karam Georges Vernez
Jeffrey Marshall
Presented at INVALSI in Rome:Improving Education Through Accountability and Evaluation
October, 2012
2 11-Sep-2012
Indonesia Education Background
• Historically, the education system was very centralized
• Quality is a concern– Ranked 50/57 countries in TIMSS (2003)– Ranked 34/45 countries in PISA (2006)
3 11-Sep-2012
Decentralization Initiatives• Several decentralization initiatives, which constitute the
SBM reform, have been implemented
– School Committees (SC) created in 2002/2003
– School responsibilities were expanded (2005)• Schools required to produce vision, annual and 4-
year plans
– School Operational Assistance (BOS) block grants implemented in 2005
• Purposes are to
– Increase local participation and voice
– Increase school autonomy
– Increase accountability and transparency
4 11-Sep-2012
SBM Reform Is Scaled Up
• Institutional aspects are general, leaving room for variation in implementation
• Decree dictates makeup of committees and boards, defines allowable and non-allowable expenditure of BOS
• But the interaction between stakeholders is decided locally
5 11-Sep-2012
Research Questions
• How is SBM implemented in Indonesia?
• What factors facilitate SBM implementation?
• How is SBM associated with student outcomes?
6 11-Sep-2012
We Developed a Framework to Guide the Policy Questions
Status of SBM Implemen-
tation
Organizational structure
Autonomy
Stakeholder involvement
(voice)
Transparency/ accountability
Intermediate Outcomes
Resource allocation
Teaching materials
Curriculum
Instruction
Teacher/student
attendance
Parent satisfaction
Facility improvements
Ultimate Outcomes
Student learning
School Capacity
to Implement
Monetary/time resources
Principal and teacher
leadership
Stakeholders’ qualification
Stakeholders’ knowledge of
roles and responsibilities
Support Provided to Schools
Implemen-tation
Guidelines
Resources
Training/professional development
Monitoring/ feedback
7 11-Sep-2012
Study Design (1)
• A nationwide sample of 400 elementary schools– 54 districts– 7 regions
• Utilized mixed methods– Survey interviews and case studies– Tested 5th graders in Bahasa and Math
• Collected data in Spring of 2009 and 2010 from district and school stakeholders
8 11-Sep-2012
• The survey targeted:– principals, SC chairs, SC members (400 each)– teachers, parents (2400 each)– head of districts, sub-districts, supervisors and
education board chairs (54 each)
Study Design (2)
9 11-Sep-2012
Illustrations of SBM component dimensions• Organizational Structure
– Existence of SC, BOS teams, teacher teams – Size and composition of each team
• Stakeholder Involvement– Frequency of meetings held by SC, BOS teams, principals and
districts
• Autonomy– Extent to which school makes final decision– Principal /teacher/district influence – Parent input
• Accountability– Monitoring practices and purpose– Actions taken– Sharing of information
10 11-Sep-2012
Today, Selected Results Are Presented Regarding
• Implementation of SBM’s key components
• Support factors facilitating SBM implementation
• Associations between SBM and student achievement
11 11-Sep-2012
Today, Selected Results Are Presented Regarding
• Implementation of SBM’s key components
• Support factors facilitating SBM implementation
• Associations between SBM and student achievement
12 11-Sep-2012
Implementation of SBM Organizational Structure
• Almost all schools have established SC teams, but fewer have established BOS and teacher teams
• Parents and community members were represented on SC, but not on BOS teams as directed by the government
13 11-Sep-2012
Implementation of Stakeholder Involvement
• SC rarely met with school personnel– Met less than 3 times a year
• Principals met with district monthly – Suggesting continuous dependence on district
input and oversight
14 11-Sep-2012
Implementation of Autonomy (1)• Majority of principals reported making final
decisions regarding school operations
15 11-Sep-2012
Implementation of Autonomy (2)
• But rarely did principals make final decisions on their own
16 11-Sep-2012
Implementation of Autonomy (3)
• Districts continued to be “somewhat to very influential” on school matters such as defining school vision, developing school plans, determining staff development
• SC and parent’s participation in final decisions and influence in school matters were low
17 11-Sep-2012
Implementation of Accountability (1)
• District supervisors monitored schools more frequently than other stakeholders
18 11-Sep-2012
Implementation of Accountability
• District and SC monitored BOS allocation quarterly– SC was limited to signing BOS forms
• Majority of parents did not receive information, limiting their ability to hold schools accountable
19 11-Sep-2012
Today, Selected Results Are Presented Regarding
• Implementation of SBM’s key components
• Support factors facilitating SBM implementation
• Associations between SBM and student achievement
20 11-Sep-2012
Overall, The Level of School Capacity and Support Fell Short
• Majority of principals, teacher, SC and parent were not provided with adequate socialization, thus their knowledge and preparedness suffered
• Resources varied greatly among schools
• But there was enough school support and capacity variation to capture their association with implementation
21 11-Sep-2012
Support Factors Facilitating School Autonomy
School Final Decision (ES)
Principal Influence (ES)
Teacher Influence (ES)
Parental Input (ES)
District support Adequacy of teacher training +.65*** Number of days of teacher training +.06*
Capacity Years of teaching -.02** Principal education (versus high school) -.77*** +.48**
Principal preparedness +.89**** Influence
District -.46*** +.28*** Principal +.44** NA NA
School-parent relationship School responsiveness -.65** +.70** Provision of information -.52*** +.21* +.41***
Region (versus Java) Kalimantan -.46* -.52*** -.54*** Papua -.83* Sumatera -.31* Sulawesi -.37* Maluku -.61* -1.1*** Urban school -.35* -.41*
Sample size (schools) 355 358 355 355Explained variance (R2) .26 .29 .16 .17
22 11-Sep-2012
Support Factors Facilitating School Accountability
Frequency of District Monitoring (ES)Number of days principal met
with district.02*
Information provided to parents 0.23***
Capacity
Years teachingTeacher training days
-.02*-0.06**
Teacher preparedness -0.60***
Hindrance SBM -0.19**
Region (versus Java)
Sumatera -0.69***
Bali -0.68**
Maluku -0.72*
Sample size 352
Explained variance (R2) .23
23 11-Sep-2012
Today, Selected Results Are Presented Regarding
• Implementation of SBM’s key components
• Support factors facilitating SBM implementation
• Associations between SBM and student achievement
24 11-Sep-2012
Associations Between SBM And Student Achievement
Bahasa (ES) Mathematics (ES)
Student and family characteristics
Student gender (versus girls) -.30***
Parent education +.17*** +.07*
Student attendance +.02*** +.03**
Capacity
Teacher certification +.06** +.07***
Years in teaching +.03*** +.01**
Principal preparedness +.13* +.76**
Curriculum standard level 4 (versus standard level 1)
+.28*
Region (versus Java)
Kalimantan -.17*
Papua -.23*
Bali -.37***
Sulawesi -.18* -.23**
Maluku -.40**
Sample size (students/teachers) 7,164 / 348 7,350 / 355
Explained variance (R2) .18 .07
25 11-Sep-2012
How to Strengthen SBM in Indonesia
• Strengthen the capacity of SCs, principals and teachers to implement SBM
• Develop district capacity to support SBM
• Provide the SC, parents and the public with comparative information on the performance of schools to hold them accountable
• Address resource disparities among schools– Examine the current financing of education
