school improvement as localized policy: a …_school_improvement_as... · teacher development...
TRANSCRIPT
May 2016
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
AS LOCALIZED POLICY:
A REVIEW OF THE
EDUCATIONAL
LEADERSHIP AND
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT
LITERATURE IN
INDONESIA AND
MALAYSIA
Justin D. Pereira
The HEAD Foundation
THF Literature Review
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 1 of 26
Abstract
Policy borrowing, a key feature of today’s social policy and especially in education, is
useful as it encourages nations and systems to learn new ideas (oftentimes dominant
in the international literature) that seemingly work in other countries. However,
equally useful is an overall understanding on how countries have adopted and
adapted these ideas, highlighting the negotiated successes and challenges
encountered which can further shape knowledge. This literature review, examines
the knowledge base that currently exists in the domains of educational leadership
and teacher development in both Indonesia and Malaysia. While there is a strong,
overall pursuit by these governments to improve educational quality to meet
international benchmarking standards for school improvement, multiple challenges
are highlighted especially in the areas of 1) politics, 2) need for development and
survival, 3) and a symbiotic need to look at school leadership and teacher
development as a cohesive whole.
Introduction
While a single framework to improve schools and student outcomes is desirable, the
differences in state capacity, political and social philosophies, issues in and around
culture, multi-ethnicities, and geographies to name a few, all play a role in shaping
the way a country’s education system operates. Despite these varying
characteristics, popular arguments in education research on what makes a good
school or the things that affect a school’s performance, narrowly or broadly defined,
largely capitalizes on teacher effectiveness, school leadership quality and its
practices.
Therefore, as governments, researchers and education practitioners attempt to
evoke positive change within a school system, there is a dilemma to the degree of
policy borrowing and contextualization needed. Underscoring that tension is a need
to develop a “critical mass” of deeper, richer and critical accounts of school
improvement processes in Asia, with contextualised approaches focusing on teacher
and school leadership effectiveness (Harris, 2015). Research has shown that in
order to improve schools, teachers and the school leadership must be treated as
stakeholders in this strategy. Ideas adopted unchanged from a Western and English
dominated literature, may run into barriers that are unique to ASEAN countries like
Indonesia and Malaysia, both developing states with its own set of histories, political
ideologies and cultural sensitivities.
This review explores research in the fields of teacher effectiveness and
development, and educational leadership that may shed light on the complexities
when global theories are applied in vastly different cultural contexts. The review is
limited to two middle income ASEAN countries, Indonesia and Malaysia. Although
their differences are aplenty, e.g. Malaysia’s ethnic pluralism is greater than
Indonesia and their education systems reflect this, the two countries are also
developing middle income economies with a common goal in attempting to improve
school standards; providing the rationale for a brief comparative study.
This paper is not comprehensive as works cited are limited to those found
written in English. As Indonesia and Malaysia are rich in their diversity of languages
and with research potentially widely done in their lingua francas (Bahasa Indonesia
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 2 of 26
and Bahasa Malaysia respectively), any literature in these languages remains
inaccessible at this point of writing.
Still, this paper attempts to make a contribution in providing a brief overview of
the domestic research conducted on school improvement, teacher development and
educational leadership in Indonesia and Malaysia, highlighting their presence and
potential to shape local policy. Insofar as policy borrowing is a widely preferred tool
for policymakers, policy learning that emerges from the confluence of international
theories and local, generative research provide the capacity for effective change
unique to the context.
In the first section, the paper will contextualize the motivations behind the
study, problematizing the notion of school improvement and its relations to teacher
and teaching quality, and educational leadership. Thereafter, instances of domestic
research in Indonesia and subsequently Malaysia will be weaved together, providing
insight to the (hopefully) latest understandings available in the literature. This paper
then concludes with some thoughts on the lessons learnt and the potential
challenges for research in each country.
Contextualizing the Review
School Improvement
Educational quality across countries in Southeast Asia is varied. Countries such as
Singapore are high performers in international standards tests such as PISA
(Programme for International Student Assessment) and TIMMS (Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study), while member states like Indonesia
and Malaysia perform below the OECD average. Although these international
benchmarking tests are criticized on issues such as consistent or consistency of
standards, cultural relativity and the potential implication of measurable
accountability processes (Dohn, 2007; Hanushek & Raymond, 2002; Harris & Jones,
2015), these education markers claim their relevance in providing a snapshot of each
country’s educational performance and its schooling quality. In comparison with
others, these indicators reflect, partially, a country’s potential for socio-economic
development, based on the ability of its human capital. More critically, these
benchmarks, to a certain degree, provide evidence for assumptions of the education
systems which seemingly work, and those that do not.
Although access to primary and secondary education continues to remain a
key issue for many countries, scholars have argued that educational quality is the
basis on which a causal relationship is established with economic outcomes
(Hanushek & Woessmann, 2007). While this incentivises governments to
continuously invest in improving public education systems for human capital
development, a strong quality of education can also lay the foundation for improved
livelihoods. The old adage of attending schools in and by itself is, therefore,
insufficient. To improve quality, schools may introduce refreshed curricula for its
students, with new ways of teaching and assessment methods but this may not
necessarily lead to improved learning outcomes. Hence, as Dimmock (2012) notes,
what is also needed for educational reform then is an “organizational redesign”
throughout schools that will affect both the organization and existing leadership
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 3 of 26
configurations – broadening the notion of school improvement beyond pedagogy or
examinations.
At its core, an improvement in educational quality will mean an improvement in
student outcomes. Yet, school improvement when situated in a context of
international league tables limits focus to the measurable while oftentimes relegating
the non-measurable to the rear. Ladwig (2010) argued that debates about education
are frequently about school accountability, with little consideration about the non-
academic - also a consequence of schooling. Education, broadly defined, has a role
in 1) shaping cognitive thought, 2) inculcating character, as well as 3) equipping the
student with the necessary skills for work. It builds on existing fields of knowledge
possessed by each child, shaped by his or her experience within the community.
However, as character and values, for instance, are not always easily measurable,
there is a danger of an overemphasis by stakeholders on the academic. The shift by
national economies into the 21st century knowledge-based frame further
problematizes educational needs, demanding students to look also at how, instead of
singularly what, measurable knowledge is learnt.
Figure 1: Institutions needed for school improvement
This places clear pressure on education systems to improve, and to keep up
with global and local demands – improved teacher effectiveness and school
leadership are therefore part of that equation. Leithwood et al. (2004) concluded that
“[educational] leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-
related factors that contribute to what students learn at school”, earmarking the need
to work with teachers and school leaders for better student outcomes. It is indicative
that who gets selected, trained and inducted as both a teacher and school leader is
all the more important in this new century forward. With educational needs going
beyond the academic, the expectations are high (Pereira, 2016). The need for
disciplinarity, soft skills, values and adaptive skills imbued in the next generation of
Government
Teachers
Educational Leaders
Societal context: Parents, the
community, the nation
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 4 of 26
students, challenges traditional forms of practises employed by both school leaders
and teachers. It hints at the complex idea of school improvement, and its constituent
factors.
The agreed upon institutions that affect school improvement are, however,
multifaceted (illustrated in Figure 1). Although the immediate literature may demand
focus on teachers (Muijs et al., 2014) and educational leadership (Day et al., 2007;
Fullan, 2001; Smith & Bell, 2014), stakeholders also include the government and the
broader societal context. Lee and Hallinger’s (2012) piece elaborated later on in this
paper is one example of how the broader social context acts as an influence towards
how school leaders behave. It is an important consideration given that schools do not
exist in a vacuum, and are just as much service providers to the communities and
countries they are situated in. This literature review will highlight research found in
these various areas, and how they necessarily intersect with the major domains of
teacher effectiveness and educational leadership.
However, insofar that these areas are recognized to provide avenues for
research towards improved outcomes, the school improvement literature is
conceptually wide and disconnected (Scheerens, 2014). While Muijs et al. (2014)
highlight discourses in the teaching effectiveness literature, they do not discuss how
the act of teaching is affected and implicated by outside classroom variables; the
social appears to be unconnected to the pedagogical. Reynolds et al. (2014) talk
about the educational effectiveness literature centred on the school and the teacher,
but place less emphasis on issues that occur at the systemic level. The overview
provided by Hopkins et al. (2014) in school and system improvement note that much
focus lies on macro educational reform strategies and research. Articles like
Hallinger and Heck’s (2011) highlight that the individual school context is still a
necessary consideration, and that one must factor in the school’s current status
within the system and its intended trajectory.
From this broad overview of the various perspectives mentioned, it is clear that
there is much interest in education research for school improvement. Apart from the
need for broad reconciliation across domains, there is then also the issue of what
gets adopted and adapted within policy circles. Complicating the problem even
further is that while research for and around school improvement has been rigorous,
a reconciliation of these findings on what works beyond general theory and into
contextual, practical accounts is oftentimes problematic because of “different
assumptions and research traditions” (Hallinger & Heck, 2011). Moreover, while
individual case studies are useful in developing a strategy, it is limited as it cannot be
generalized.
As such, Hallinger and Heck (2011) have proposed that longitudinal data is a
necessity to understand how a localized theory of school improvement can take
shape. The time taken for longitudinal studies, however, is also a shortcoming, and
not always one in which governments and policymakers can afford. As a result, there
is a certain attractive quotient about learning the experience of other countries,
especially those that represent “best practice”. Further, Steiner-Khamsi (2013) notes
that the global circulation of best practices are a strong pressure acting on
governments to simply adopt international solutions to local problems. Raffe (2011)
argues that the tendency to learn from best practices creates a policy borrowing
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 5 of 26
approach that is methodologically unsound. Instead, a policy learning approach is
recommended, where policies are developed tailored to the country’s needs. A
unique feature about policy learning is that the international experience should be
capitalized on as a platform to understand the domestic system – a feature well
demonstrated and executable through local research.
Educational Leadership
While educational leadership theories since then and before have been addressing
topics such as Transformational leadership, Distributed leadership and Instructional
leadership, much of the criticism is that these models were built on Western empirical
studies with little contribution from Asia. It was only in recent years that the literature
on Asian educational leadership has taken prominence within academic circles
(Hallinger, 2015; Li, 2015; National Institute of Education, 2013; Ng, 2015). Harris
(2015) concurs with Hallinger and Chen (2014) that there is a dearth of domestic and
comparative educational leadership literature that takes into account Asian countries.
In particular, Harris argues that existing leadership theories are largely mono-cultural,
and are normative in nature. How this is transferred across countries, especially
developing states and societies which are halfway across the world is not as clear.
Hence the advice that nations should be focused on policy learning rather than policy
borrowing.
Teacher quality and effectiveness
Improving the quality of teachers within Asia has received increased attention by
governments and researchers. Invariably regarded as the frontline officer with a
crucial and immediate role in shaping student development, teacher development
and quality research have frequently garnered the attention of international
institutions such as the World Bank [eg. Moreno(2005) and Chang et. al (2014)] and
UNESCO (2015, p. 54).
The Asia Society is one specific example where there has been effort to
spotlight attention onto the teaching profession, and its related effects on student
learning outcomes. Since 2011, the society has organized annual iterations of the
International Summit on the Teaching Profession (Asia Society, 2011, 2012, 2013,
2014, 2015). During the inaugural 2011 conference in particular, best practices on
teacher policy were shared amongst countries and case studies from high-
performing education systems were highlighted (Asia Society, 2011). Insofar that
these ideas were useful, they were ultimately premised on the results of sixteen high-
performing countries and regions1. As such, its applicability and transferability to
developing Southeast Asian countries that have varying structural priorities, differing
social and economic regard for teachers or even fundamentally separate state-
supported school systems because of religion and political philosophies, remain
open for debate and research. This further undergirds the necessity and importance
to contextualize global research and theories, and where possible, highlight localized
adaptation of existing theories that may not be as prevalent or widely understood.
1 Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the People’s Republic of China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Singapore, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America.
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 6 of 26
Educational Leadership and Teacher Quality in Indonesia
Our scan of the Indonesian educational literature demonstrated a heavy emphasis in
ensuring that educational fundamentals are achieved. Research on educational
leadership is however slowly gaining traction, with a stronger realization that a sole
emphasis on teacher quality and teacher policies is insufficient in creating a high
performing education system.
Educational Leadership and the Politics of Decentralization
Scholars have noted that in lieu of a ‘missing’ domestic research literature on
educational leadership in Indonesia, policymakers often take to practices employed
by Western school systems as the basis of instruction to create policy. Motivated by
education systems whose comparative international benchmarking scores are
significantly higher than Indonesia’s, there is strong impetus to follow practices
highlighted in the global literature (eg. educational decentralization and policies such
as the country’s school-based management (SBM) systems). Furthermore, when
education policy practices resonate with certain political ideologies, policy makers
are driven to pay closer attention.
This privilege of the political over the empirical is evident in how school
principals perceive decentralized movements such as the SBM. Although there is
little mention on how SBM has impacted schooling outcomes, researchers have
found that Indonesian principals generally agree that the system worked in their
favour (Bandur, 2012). The increase in participatory decision making practices have
emphasized “democratic principles in school-decision making processes”. By giving
autonomy to local systems and encouraging participatory discourse, it was assumed
that schools can be better managed for improved outcomes.
Ironically, despite being portrayed as a means of empowerment,
decentralization in education has instead disempowered competent school leaders.
Recent work done by Sumintono et al. (2015) argue that although Indonesia
emplaced efforts to improve school leader quality through certification and training
since 2009, these nationally trained leaders find it difficult to lead schools if they lack
social connections with the local political office. Educational decentralization, while
empowering local governments in making school appointments then acts against the
system’s interest. Competency and meritocratic ability is but a shadow acting under
the more important realities of networks and relationship. Considering the country’s
social and political realities, scholars thus argue that what is necessary is training
and opportunities for school leaders to negotiate the intricacies which educational
autonomy brings about (Bjork, 2005; G. W. Jones & Hagul, 2001, p. 214).
As such, scholars such as Bjork (2005) have pointed out that the broadly
employed movement for educational decentralization and other policies like the Local
Content Curriculum (LCC) were embraced out of “hopefulness” rather than as a
“careful study” of the concept. The ADB noted that the move for decentralization was
due to the World Bank’s 1998 recommendation as a means for improved schooling
quality – backed by beliefs in autonomy and economic efficiency on resource
allocation compared against private schools (Behrman, Deolalikar, & Soon, 2002, p.
33). However, while decentralization gives autonomy to regional and local
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 7 of 26
leadership, its effective implementation is highly dependent on many variables – one
of which is the availability of competent school and government leaders who are
committed to schooling effectiveness and schooling improvement. Decentralization is
also an attractive concept because of its political empowerment separate and a
contrast to Indonesia’s past authoritarian and federal-centric political history. Yet,
Hadiz (2004) argued that the pursuit of decentralization by the authorities was less
on the notes of transparency and accountability, but more on the development of a
decentralized network of patronage. Research conducted by Kristiansen and
Pratikno (2006) found while some parents perceived an improvement in educational
quality, it was also at the expense of transparency, accountability in government
spending and an increased cost of education.
Figure 2: Diagram extracted from Sofo, Fitzgerald and Jawas (2012) identifying the
problem areas that are limiting school reform and improved student outcomes in
Indonesian schools.
This barrier towards systemic change have thus prompted Sofo, Fitzgerald and
Jawas (2012) to argue that recommendations on Indonesian schooling have tended
to address “technical issues rather than [issues] on education reform”. However, in
an effort to provide ‘solutions’, they make a case for Instructional Leadership as a
model for school principals to address issues in 1) managerial shortcomings, 2)
change and irrelevancy, and 3) the quality of teaching within schools [see Figure 2].
On a different note, Hariri, Monypenny and Prideaux (2014) recommend instead that
Transformational and Transactional leadership should be instituted as part of the
educational leadership training programme. Their research on school principal
leadership styles and subsequent decision-making methods suggest that as
surveyed from the teachers’ perspective, these leadership styles produce positive
working relationships. As transformational and transactional leadership may be
coherent in establishing a strong partnership with teachers, it is evident that
Problem 1 Managerial shortcomings
(a) Lack of management efficiency
(b) Lack of experience to execute authority
(c) Lack of commitment
(d) Teachers paid on years of service not
performance
Problem 2 Change and irrelevancy
(a) Erratic change of policies
(b) Frequent curriculum changes
(c) Lack of representation of student
characteristics
(d) Relevance of learning weakened
Problem 3 Quality of teaching
(a) Professional competence and quality of
teaching
(b) Restrained development
(c) Lack of ambition, diligence and
innovation
(d) Job security more valued than desire to
improve and influence
Factors impeding school reform and improved student outcomes in
Indonesia
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 8 of 26
researchers are attempting to adapt established global theory to fit the local context
in order to achieve long-term goals.
However, the successful implementation of leadership model is highly
dependent on how a principal perceives his role within the education system. Lee
and Hallinger (2012) conclude that Indonesian principals prioritize school
management and administrative procedures rather than other leadership or
instructional functions. This selective preference of time use is shaped by the
“organizational and [the] cultural context” where the principal’s actions are influenced
by the country’s economic, sociocultural and institutional priorities. Although the
literature privileges the principal to be a leader rather than an administrator, Lee and
Hallinger’s work highlights how the principal is also a reactive constituent to his
surrounding and nationalistic demands. This understanding implicates how a school
principal settles into his role as a leader, and how the school’s teachers are
subsequently managed by the individual. It has implications towards directions for
change, and the capacity of change that can be effectively embraced.
Nonetheless, there is also a strand of argument within the Indonesian
educational leadership literature that highlights the school principal’s efforts in going
beyond the conventional administrative role. Raihani (2008) argues from his research
on three successful Indonesian schools that principals commonly shared an ability to
1) analyse context (understand the school’s capacity and the community’s needs), 2)
create their own vision of success (in line with comparative standards at the National
and comparative level), and 3) make decisions based on beliefs and values strongly
grounded in religion. There appears to be a drive for success and school
improvement. What is not as clear, however, is how these localized ideas are
adopted and can work their way with the more macro perspectives produced by the
country’s education policymakers.
This brief survey over the Indonesian educational leadership literature reveals
a critical assessment still caught up in its infancy stages. While there are some
efforts to contextualize educational leadership within the multiple intersectionalities of
power, politics and geography, proposed suggestions for change are brief and not as
rigorous; there is too little research evidence on how ewll these ‘solutions’ might
work. Given Indonesia’s unique geopolitical landscape, models for school
improvement and better educational leadership may be better achieved from success
stories within the region. Top-down implementation of policies may encounter
difficulties that are unique and unattested for. It is a sentiment that is clearly
resounded within the next section on Teacher Reform in Indonesia.
The multiple complexities of research on Indonesian Teacher Quality
The World Bank’s recent report on “Teacher Reform in Indonesia” (Chang et al.,
2014) provides a comprehensive overview of Indonesia’s efforts in improving teacher
quality. The report structures work done around the teacher reform conceptual
framework (see Figure 3), detailing success and failures impacted by the 2005
Teachers’ Law. Notably, while policy has argued for significant increments in teacher
salaries, certification, professionalization, pre-service and continuous professional
development, the conclusion for future directions in Indonesian teacher policy
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 9 of 26
centres on “whole-school reform” that integrates knowledge, culture and a “learning
community”.
Figure 3: Conceptual framework for quality education extracted from Chang et al.
(2014)
Clearly, this emphasis on teaching stems on the critical role which teachers
play in delivering and shaping student outcomes. Researchers has therefore
attempted to historicize the development of the Indonesian teaching community in
order to better understand where intervention can be made. Suryadarma and Jones
(2013) make the case that many of Indonesia’s educational problems revolve around
the teaching force. Because of strong teacher hiring occurring in the 70s – 80s in a
bid to vastly improve educational access to all Indonesians, compromises were made
in teacher recruitment, training and overall quality:
“This infusion of new, but not very rich, blood diluted the strength of the
teacher cadre; blurred the mythic image of the teacher as a community leader
and nation builder; and ultimately, combined with a large expansion of the
rest of the civil service, reduced the salaries of teachers and other civil
servants relative to other professions.”
(Chang et al., 2014)
As such, while government efforts created the educational capacity for
universal school enrolment by 1983, it had also created problems in 1) educational
quality, 2) teacher absenteeism, 3) de-professionalization, 4) and impacted the
Indonesian teacher’s role and identity. Despite government attempts to expand the
teaching force and improve teaching qualifications since Law 14/2005 (also known
as the Teachers’ Law), there is now a surplus of teachers, and the relationship
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 10 of 26
between teacher certifications and student performance is minimal (Al-Samarrai &
Cerdan-Infantes, 2013; Suharti, 2013). The doubling of salaries also has had no
impact to student outcomes, and was seen only as a financial transfer to teachers
and an increment in teacher welfare (Ree, Muralidharan, Pradhan, & Rogers, 2015).
Fahmi, Maulana and Yusuf (2011) note that teacher certification in Indonesia is
a confusion of the means and ends. Although the formal end goal was to improve
student outcomes, certification only led to an improvement in a teacher’s living
standards. The authors recommend that a reward and punishment scheme be
implemented, closely tied to a student’s performance. This call for incentives and
sanctions was also resounded in tackling teacher absenteeism. Suryahadi and
Samabodho (2013) point out that because of the widespread case of teacher
absenteeism, especially in rural areas, student learning is negatively impacted. Both
authors argue that communities should be better involved with schools, and that
school committees should have the capacity and flexibility to discourage
absenteeism. It re-emphasizes earlier research which concluded policy’s motivating
and punitive roles in encouraging teachers to come to work (Usman, Akhmadi, &
Suryadarma, 2007).
However, Broekman (2013) pointedly argues that existing Indonesian teacher
accountability policies based on standards, appraisal, and links between
performance and reward are flawed. While these measures are appropriate based on
a “carrots and sticks” approach, Broekman questions if they truly reflect the
motivational and de-motivational factors among Indonesian teachers. HE asserts that
this managerial perspective stems from the Indonesian policymaker following global
rhetoric influenced by key stakeholders such as the World Bank. Also, as much as
teachers are expected to be professional individually, Broekman highlights the
nuances in institutional culture that displays a stronger teacher preference for
hierarchical “discipline”. This is contrasted to a degree by Hariri et al. (2012) and
Damanik (2014) who showed that a teachers’ job satisfaction could be improved if
the principal were “less coercive and bureaucratic”.
Therefore, while policy measures have attempted to employ tangible rewards
and sanctions to correct teacher behaviour, scholars have also broadened the
paradigm to look into other influencing factors such as the sociological and
psychological underpinnings that affect teacher performance both in the classroom
and out of it. Bjork (2013) notes that Indonesian teachers have a superordinate “civil
servant” identity that needs to shift into one of an ‘educator’. He argues that teachers,
loyal to the education ministry, implement its policies with little consideration of its
impact to students. This disjuncture between the central and the local is only
reinforced by the unquestioning bureaucratic teacher, grounded in its own history of
teacher-state relationships. Still, while Bjork argues that the idea of the ‘autonomous
educator’ is an alien concept partly motivated by the past2 , Young (2010) asserts
that such a perspective is limited as it “does not consider extra-national or global
forces”. In particular, English language teachers in Indonesia are challenging the
state’s overt presence because of the global language’s influence intermixed with the
local – which Young terms the global-state-local dialectic. It suggests that although
2 This is a theme consistent in Bjork’s writing. See Bjork (2005)
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 11 of 26
there might be a consistent teacher culture, such homogeneity is constantly evolving
and re-shaped with the introduction of various internal and external influences.
Exacerbating the issues on maintaining and improving teacher quality is
Indonesia’s geographical diversity and divides between the urban and rural areas.
Even though educational access is almost universal, access for quality and
continuous teacher training remains a problem. Luschei and Zubaidah (2012)
pointedly note that rural schools are characterised with multigrade classrooms that
teachers are not equipped to teach. While the literature extolls the benefits of a
multigrade classroom and a multigrade pedagogy (Little, 2001; Thomas & Shaw,
1992), Luschei and Zubaidah’s (2012) respondents note that these ‘Western’
methods are hindered by large classes, insufficient resources, and a teacher training
that does not take into account local challenges – with teachers much preferring
monograde classes. The authors suggest that this preference for monograde
teaching is behavioural. A deep loyalty to the country’s previous dictum of a one-
grade, one-curriculum learning philosophy advocated by the previous centralized
education system, and the need to cater to high stakes national examinations in the
6th and 12th grades, discourage teachers from autonomously innovating multigrade
practices. Furthermore, with rural schools and teachers being geographically
separated from their teacher educators and continuous training opportunities, the
capacity to respond and improve becomes a spatial issue.
Teacher Professional Development
Indonesia’s rural and remote landscape thus raises issues on how teachers can
engage in continuous professional development (PD). Sari (2012) posits that as
current PD practices focus on teacher-centred instead of collaborative approaches,
with a strong demand for “face-to-face” interaction, teachers are structurally
prevented from improving existing skills if they do not have the benefit of access. Her
proposal in establishing a modified Online Learning Communities (OLC) that is
adapted for Indonesia’s socio-cultural context through hierarchical teaching, and one
that leverages on social media on mobile phones considering the country’s ICT
infrastructural landscape, opens up a discussion for possibilities towards change.
Where instructional practice is concerned, one international practice adapted
and researched within Indonesian classrooms is the use of Lesson Study (LS) to re-
shape pedagogical methods. Introduced to Indonesian teachers since the early
2000s, LS provide a platform for continuous professional development and is an area
that has garnered significant attention from local scholars (Eisuke Saito et al., 2006;
Firman, 2010; Hendayana, 2010; Hendayana et al., 2007; Saito, Hawe,
Hadiprawiroc, & Empedhe, 2008; Saito, Imansyah, Isamu, & Hendayana, 2007;
Saito, Imansyah, Isamu, & Hideharu, 2006; T. Suratno & Cock, 2009; T. Suratno,
2009a, 2009b). More recently, Suratno (2012) argues that because of the Ministry’s
commitment, international expert support, local adaptation, teacher motivation for
change and a “learning process that was more engaging and different from the
norm”, LS is currently “spreading like wildfire across Indonesia”. Still, scholars
caution that more effort and understanding is needed in LS partnerships and
sustaining reflexive practices in order to create a valuable form of continuous quality
teacher education (Tatang Suratno & Iskandar, 2010). The main issues that
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 12 of 26
seemingly stand out from the Indonesian teacher literature largely centres on impacts
which the 2005 Teacher Law achieved, the teacher’s underlying social and
psychological grievances, and challenges concerning continuous professional
training considering the country’s wide geographical spread.
Notably, there is a distinct effort to critically engage with existing policy and
practices to adapt to domestic nuances. However, one lasting consideration is that
as Indonesian teacher policy remains a reform centrepiece with a vested interest by
international organizations and global research, the leverage which domestic
research has remains a point for contention.
Educational Leadership and Teacher Quality in Malaysia
Before delving into the Malaysian educational literature, it is important to note
that while similar concerns are shared with Indonesia in broad attempts to improve
educational quality, there is a substantial push in the Malaysian education system,
towards an attempt to produce equitable student outcomes. While this does not
mean that the Indonesian government is ignorant of student equity issues, the
Malaysian National Educational Blueprint 2013-2025 has highlighted multiple factors
concerning educational equity such as a state’s economic capacity, the presence of
rural and urban schools, the divide amongst ethnic schools and its varying
performances, and the increasing educational-gender gap between boys and girls
(Ministry of Education, 2012, p. E–9).
The challenge becomes even more significant as the country recognizes the
need to equip Malaysian students with 21st century knowledge, skills and
competencies that, while present in a few schools, effectively intensifies existing
issues of inequality. This quest for educational opportunity has been a core
concentration of the government since independence, as a means to correct the
ethnic-based differences within society wrought about by colonial rule.
Therefore, although this paper had initially begun a discussion on moving away
from the issue of access to one of quality, conversations around equity is now also
an influential reason as to why school improvement is sought in a country. Elements
of the domestic literature, has as such, reflected this sentiment with a stronger
emphasis on critical education policies centred around topics such as
multiculturalism (eg. Tan and Raman (2010, 2014)). Yet, this criticality does not
necessarily always permeate the immediate literature on schooling, with a stronger
tendency to view educational issues dissociated from the intersectionalities that
make a school. The seminal work by Hussein Ahmad (2012) on the Mission of Public
Education in Malaysia: The Challenge of Transformation is perhaps one of the few
recent pieces that attempt to provide a degree of critical thought in Malaysian
education.
Growing attempts at educational leadership research
In 2012, a new and ambitious National Educational Blueprint was established by the
Malaysian authorities attempting to raise the country’s education performance to
international educational standards. Within 11 recommended shifts to transform the
existing system, points 4 and 5 argue for the transformation of teaching into the
profession of choice, as well as ensuring high performing school leaders present in
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 13 of 26
every school (Ministry of Education, 2012). This level of expertise and quality is
deemed necessary especially with a stronger move towards educational
decentralization. Stronger school leadership and management capacities are
required for strategies that advocate a “more open curriculum” (H. Ahmad, 2012, p.
369) and are designed with “minimal rules and procedures”. In this new normal,
schools are idealized with a capacity and autonomy to create direction while reacting
to policy. Ahmad (2012) argues that this demand beckons the development of
principals as “SuperLeaders” in Malaysian schools. It is to an extent, a re-invocation
of the Charismatic Leader that dominated previous leadership theories.
However, as noted by Jones et al. (2015), despite the recent attention given by
the Malaysian government towards principal preparation and training, the empirical
research on school leadership within the country remains limited. Earlier work done
by researchers proposing school leadership models suited for a 21st century
knowledge frame remain conceptual (eg. Ahmad and Ghavifekr (2014) and Tie
(2011)). Therefore, in a brief contribution to the domestic literature, Jones et al.
(2015) highlight findings that because Malaysian principals currently identify their role
as one which also empowers others to take action, institutionalizing a Distributed
Leadership model seems consistent and effective for schools. Halim and Ahmad
(2015) further concur that teachers are receptive with this model as it is also an
enabling factor for expertise to be shared. Nonetheless, the authors do argue that
Distributed Leadership is still in its infancy changes for widespread acceptability and
more research is needed to understand its implementation within the Malysian school
work culture.
Still, this recognition of teacher empowerment through school leadership
demonstrates a shift in how earlier scholars perceived school leaders to be simply a
manager and an administrator (Quah, 2011, p. 1787; Tie, 2011, p. 424). It resonates
with earlier research that there is growing consensus domestically on how leadership
practices have an impact on teacher performance, and subsequently better student
achievement for school improvement (Abdullah, DeWitt, & Alias, 2013; Simin
Ghavifekr, Ibrahim, Chellapan, Sukumaran, & Subramaniam, 2015; Ponnusamy,
2010; Salleh & Mohamad, 2015; Sharma, Sun, & Kannan, 2012; Suraya & Yunus,
2012).
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 14 of 26
Figure 4: Challenges faced by Malaysian Chinese Primary Schools Heads of
Departments as transformational leaders by Ghavifekr et al. (2014).
Through his research on Instructional Leadership, Quah (2011) makes the
point that Malaysian principals are, in general, successful instructional leaders.
However, Quah also notes that Malaysian principals do not place as much attention
on weak teaching methods or underperforming students. Instead, there is an
emphasis towards areas of overall vision, a smooth teaching program, a
collaborative climate, and avenues for teacher’s professional development. The
implications of this discussion is that Malaysian school principals, though
instructional, are selective and grounded by older schools of thought that privilege
certain values and discourses. Sekhu (2011) then recommends that for methods
towards better student performance, instruction should be central to school activities
and that good relationships be established between teachers and learners. She also
advocates that the principal should take a stronger role in their teacher’s
development, especially those who are underachieving, as well as being kept
abreast of classroom activities.
Although Malaysia embraces a largely centralised education system with
direction set by Kuala Lumpur, the earlier Malaysian National Education Blueprint of
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 15 of 26
2006-2010 attempted a degree of decentralisation through the establishment of
cluster schools in the country. Despite being given management autonomy in five
distinct areas3, school leaders still had a delimited freedom of choice (Malaklolunthu
& Shamsudin, 2011). This limited autonomy impacts a school’s capacity for teacher
recruitment decisions, resulting in a little authority in retaining the right teachers.
Recognizing the breadth of leadership-operational challenges within schools, work
produced by Ghavifekr et al. (2014) detail their findings from research on Chinese
primary schools Heads of departments (see Figure 4).
Malakolunthu (2007), though her analysis is limited to two Malaysian secondary
schools, points out that teachers face a bureaucratic school management structure
which undermines the teacher’s efforts. While there has been much effort to promote
various leadership models at the national level, Malakolunthu’s research shows a
situational “inability of the principal to establish a working culture based on the norms
of collegiality and professional inquiry” (ibid:127). In other words, there is a
dissonance between both teachers and principal of what it means to have a
supportive work climate.
Crucial to this discussion, however, is her assertion that there are different
conceptions to management, teaching and learning embraced by the principal – an
ethos that can subsequently affect a teacher’s performance. This is largely
influenced by a principal’s 1) beliefs, 2) existing professional knowledge as well as 3)
demands from larger policy contexts and their subsequent expectations most
especially brought about by frequent reform. Therefore, Malakolunthu proposes that
despite the realities of out-of-touch educational power-brokers from central
government, there needs to be stronger efforts in “building principals” to support
school development.
It is clear that though research attempts have been made in illuminating best
practices amongst school leaders, as well as various advocates arguing for a
leadership model that works, there is a strong undercurrent that demands for
leadership to take place in schools. Nonetheless, while there is strong research
establishing leadership’s necessity, there is little empirical work done that reveal how
leadership practices are challenged within the existing system. This is an important
consideration as though there are calls for strong leadership, more understanding is
needed how these leaders (if any) negotiate the realities brought about by a strong
centre. In other words, scholarship that provides a critical address on the
complexities of power for the system’s middle leaders can give better insight to the
steps needed in creating high performing school leaders.
The research reviewed in this essay make a stronger argument that leadership
is important for school improvement, but it does not explicate as much on how it is
also problematic. The challenges that do surface are oftentimes operational, and not
immediately revealing of a larger discourse that is present in a confluence of the
political, social, psychological or geographical.
A stronger need to study Teacher quality and development
3 School management, physical management, human resource management, teaching and learning, co-curriculum management.
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 16 of 26
There is a global consensus that one of the best ways to improve teaching is to
transform teaching into the profession of choice – a fact not lost on the Malaysian
authorities. Articulated as a career meant for top graduates, teachers will arguably
receive the best training from recruitment to retirement, and have access to career
progression based on competency and merit (Ministry of Education, 2012, p. E–26).
This resolve, however, has been a frequent pursuit by the authorities with the various
reform plans such as the Education Act 1996 and the Education Development Plan
2006 – 2010 (H. Ahmad, 2012, p. 167; Goh, 2012, p. 74; Jamil, 2014) to improve the
profession’s status as a whole as well as to improve instruction. Yet, as argued by
Malakolunthu (2007), the success of reform is not just a bureaucratic initiative. It is
highly dependent on those who implement the initiative. Therefore, when reform
does fail, one must look at potential “conceptual and practical cleavages”
(Malakolunthu, 2007, p. 1) between the policy planners and the implementers.
As shown in the earlier section, one of Malakolunthu’s (2007) key ideas is the
“building principal” concept. Apart from being an administrator and a manager, the
building principal’s core function as an instructional leader is to develop teachers.
However, as demonstrated through her empirical studies on two Malaysian schools,
the potential for teacher development is very much limited by the type leadership
present. This suggests then that central to opportunities for Professional
Development (PD) is the presence of instructional school leaders. Therefore, even if
there is strong government effort in encouraging PD as a means of career
development or because of monetary incentives (Jamil, Razak, Raju, & Mohamed,
2011), proper teacher development cannot occur without the right leaders. In that
sense, although Ahmad (2012) has identified several policy challenges when it
comes to developing quality teachers in Malaysia (such as issues on talent attraction
and the ability to connect pre-service training with professional service), the gap that
needs addressing are policy and research efforts that looks at teaching and
leadership relationships as a cohesive whole.
Also fundamental to this discussion is that a high quality teacher education
system is necessary to ground the teacher development process, and where
necessary, build resilience for future complexities. However, researchers have
argued that the Malaysian teacher education system must change. Lee (2002)
proposed early on that a revamp is needed in shifting the teacher education
curriculum from the technical-rational approach to one that is closer to a reflective
practitioner. Moreover, the “one-size fits all” approach in teacher education is
problematic especially with a culturally diverse teaching cohort that has to internalize
a national curriculum for an even more diverse group of students. Because the
challenges are multi-fold, Lee argues that there should be strong focus for research
on teacher education, especially in the context of teaching and learning and the
issues of lifelong professional development within a distinctive Malaysian context.
This emphasis on a high quality and relevant teacher education and educators
have been echoed a decade later. Ahmad (2012) acknowledges four areas of
opportunity that can ensure a quality teacher education: 1) the recruitment of the
right teacher educators, 2) rigorous pre-service teacher training programmes, 3)
quality continuous teacher education programmes, and 4) retaining of the best
teachers and teacher educators within the field. Importantly, he asserts that one
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 17 of 26
critical question that needs discussion is “not where the Malaysian teacher education
mission is heading . . . but where it ought to be heading” (ibid:218).
At the agent level, Mokshein et al. (2009) argues that for Malaysia to train and
retain quality teachers within the cadre, teachers must be active participants in policy
discourse and take greater ownership in areas for professional development. The
authors further assert that at the system level, a greater decentralization of
educational governance is needed to include more stakeholders within the reform
process. Most importantly, a call is made for teachers themselves to solve the issues
on quality teaching. However, quality teaching varies and is not easily defined.
Contemporary pre-occupation by scholars and government with measurable figures
that reveal ‘quality’ is perhaps most clearly seen in the establishment of the 2009
Malaysian Teacher Standards. Yet, though standards are in one aspect limited and
may not be the only way to measure teacher quality, Goh (2012) notes that with a
“rigorous method”, competent instructional practice can be encouraged. Still, she
acknowledges that while the goals are clear, the empirical impact which standards
have within the teaching profession is currently uncertain.
Insofar that there are expectations on the teacher to deliver, a proper
environment is also needed to facilitate results. Nonetheless, scholars have argued
that teacher’s welfare is being neglected. Research conducted by Malakolunthu, Idris
and Rengasamy (2010) reveal that deteriorating work environment in Malaysian
secondary schools are having an impact onto teacher’s welfare and subsequently
classroom performance. Although some may argue that teachers are motivated by
intrinsic factors, Hamid et al. (2012) note that good personality alone is “insufficient in
terms of enhancing the teachers’ commitment and responsibilities towards their
students”. The complementary link, they argue, is a high degree of “cognitive
competency”. While this remains a factor to be further discussed, what is clear is that
both internal and external motivating factors need addressing in better understanding
the Malaysian teachers status and conditions.
From this brief survey of the Malaysian teacher development literature, it is
apparent that there are attempts in breaking the monolithic discussion called ‘quality
teaching’ into feasible parts for researchers to work on. Still, as much as these
articles highlighted are to a degree critical of existing practices, there are multiple
questions that need answering. For instance, if school leadership and teaching were
to be viewed as symbiotic halves, stronger empirical studies are necessary in
unveiling domestic best practices. In cases where schools have seemingly failed,
researchers must look at the larger political and policy discourse that affects results.
The factors that contribute to recruitment and development of a high quality teacher
are well documented. What is needed then is to establish the challenges in the
implementation of the policies in identifying and retaining quality teachers within
particular political, educational and cultural contexts.
Concluding Remarks
Firstly, it is important to note that this review set out to interrogate the national
literature that, it was hoped, would provide a basis for understanding the educational
policies in leadership and teacher quality in two Asian countries. The challenges
faced in this process is that much more work remains inaccessible due to language
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 18 of 26
constraints and that not all works published in international journals are available
online. Despite these limitations, this review is significant as it provides the
international reader with a more informed, contemporary understanding of the
education research, issues and challenges that are present in both Malaysia and
Indonesia.
For Indonesia, the social realities brought about by politics, geography and
survival are most distinct in the research on educational leadership and teacher
development. Also, while there are numerous attempts to improve educational
quality, what it means to have improvement varies across locales ranging from urban
cities to rural schools. This beckons the question if international benchmarks such as
OECD’s PISA are entirely necessary, or equitably reflective of the country’s state of
education. It is clear that in Indonesia’s case, there is a stronger underlying emphasis
within research and policy that speaks of politics, state development and survival.
Malaysia’s challenges as understood from the research studies are less clear.
There is a clear recognition of education’s role for the national economy and the
country’s drive towards 21st century competencies, but the domestic research
available does not always rigorously assess the implications for such decisions. The
research focus is in the area of viewing teaching and school leadership as a
symbiotic whole. As much as there is call to create SuperLeaders (Malaysian
education system’s designation for good quality experienced teachers), this is also in
the view to develop better leadership capacities to encourage teachers’
development.
Still, attempts to adapt global ideas are present in both contexts. While
globalization may seemingly encourage policy borrowing from systems that
‘succeed’, Harris (2016) warns reformers that there is ample evidence to
demonstrate that approaches to school or system improvement needs to be properly
contextualized in order to have any real chance of succeeding. More documented
lessons are needed to understand the effects of policy acquisition that is adopted
based on just ideological assumptions.
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 19 of 26
Appendix 1
Raihani’s (2008) model of successful Indonesian school leadership
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 20 of 26
Note
The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect those of The HEAD Foundation.
References
Abdullah, N. A. W., DeWitt, D., & Alias, N. (2013). School Improvement Efforts and
Challenges: A Case Study of a Principal Utilizing Information Communication
Technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 791–800.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.400
Ahmad, H. (2012). Mission of Public Education in Malaysia: The Challenge of
Transformation. University of Malaya Press.
Ahmad, R. H., & Ghavifekr, S. (2014). School leadershiup for the 21st Century: A
conceptual overview. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management,
2(1), 48–61.
Al-Samarrai, S., & Cerdan-Infantes, P. (2013). Where did all the money go?
Financing Basic Education in Indonesia. In Education in Indonesia. Singapore:
ISEAS Publishing.
Asia Society. (2011). Improving teacher quality around the world: The international
summit on the teaching profession.
Asia Society. (2012). Teaching and Leadership for the Twenty-First Century: The
2012 International Summit on the Teaching Profession.
Asia Society. (2013). Teacher Quality: The 2013 International Summit on the
Teaching Profession.
Asia Society. (2014). Excellent, Equity, and Inclusiveness: High Quality Teaching for
All: The 2014 International Summit on the Teaching Profession.
Asia Society. (2015). Implementing Highly Effective Teacher Policy and Practice: The
2015 International Summit on the Teaching Profession.
Bandur, A. (2012). School-based management developments and partnership:
Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development,
32(2), 316–328. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.05.007
Behrman, J. R., Deolalikar, A. B., & Soon, L. Y. (2002). Promoting effective schooling
through education decentralization in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Philippines.
ERD Working Paper Series. Asian Development Bank.
Bjork, C. (2005). Indonesian education: Teachers, schools and central bureaucracy.
New York: Routledge.
Bjork, C. (2013). Teacher Training, School Norms and Teacher Effectiveness in
Indonesia. In Education in Indonesia. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Broekman, A. (2013). The rationale and effects o accountability policies on the work
and motivation of teachers: Evidence from Indonesia. Global Managerial
Education Reforms and Teachers, 19.
Chang, M. C., Shaeffer, S., Al-Sammarrai, S., Ragatz, A. B., de Ree, J., &
Stevenson, R. (2014). Teacher reform in Indonesia: The Role of Politics and
Evidence in Policy Making. Retrieved from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16355/97808213
98296.pdf?sequence=1
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 21 of 26
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., … Kington, A.
(2007). The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes.
Dimmock, C. (2012). Leadership, Capacity Building and School Improvement. New
York: Routledge.
Dohn, N. B. (2007). Knowledge and Skills for PISA—Assessing the Assessment.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(1), 1–16.
Eisuke Saito, Hendayana, S., Imansyah, H., Ibrohim, Isamu, K., & Hideharu, T.
(2006). Development of school-based in-service training under an Indonesian
mathematics and science teacher education project. Improving Schools, 9(1),
47–59.
Firman, H. (2010). Dampak program kerjasama FPMIPAUPI dan JICA (the impact of
FOMASE IUE and JICA cooperation programmes). In T. Hidayat, I. Kaniawati, I.
Suwarma, A. Setiabudi, & Suhendra (Eds.), Teori, paradigma, prinsip dan
pendekatan pembelajaran MIPA dalam konteks Indonesia (Theory, Paradigm,
Principle and Approach of Mathematics and Science Learning in Indonesian
Context) (pp. 41–54). Bandung: FPMIPA UPI.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ghavifekr, S., Amy, L. S. H., Hee, F. L., & Tan, M. C. (2014). Head of Departments
As Transformational Leaders in Schools: Issues and Chalenges. Malaysian
Online Journal of Educational Management, 2(3), 119–139.
Ghavifekr, S., Ibrahim, M. S., Chellapan, K., Sukumaran, K., & Subramaniam, A.
(2015). Instructional Leadership Practices of Principal in Vocational and
Technical College: Teachers’ Perception. Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Management, 3(1), 48–67.
Goh, P. S. C. (2012). The Malaysian Teacher Standards: A look at the Challenges
and Implications for Teacher Educators. Educational Research for Policy and
Practice, 11(2), 73–87. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-011-9107-8
Hadiz, V. R. (2004). Decentralization and democracy in Indonesia: A critique of neo-
institutionalist perspectives. Development and Change, 35(4), 697–718.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0012-155X.2004.00376.x
Halim, R. A., & Ahmad, H. H. (2015). Distributed Leadership, Contextual Factor and
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Malaysia. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational
Management, 3(2), 70–81.
Hallinger, P. (2015). Reflection on our Efforts to Understand Leadership for Learning
in Asia Pacific. Asia Leadership Roundtable.
Hallinger, P., & Chen, J. (2014). Review of research on educational leadership and
management in Asia: A comparative analysis of research topics and methods,
1995-2012. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 5–27.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.803961
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement :
classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes
and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An
International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 22(1), 1–27.
Hamid, S. R. A., Hassan, S. S. S., & Ismail, N. A. H. (2012). Teaching quality and
performance among experienced teachers in Malaysia. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(11), 85–103. http://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n11.2
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 22 of 26
Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2002). Improving Educational Quality: How
Best to Evaluate Our Schools. Education in the 21st Century: Meeting the
Challenges of a Changing World.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2007). The Role of School Improvement in
Economic Development. NBER Working Paper Series. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12832
Hariri, H., Monypenny, R., & Prideaux, M. (2014). Principalship in an Indonesian
school context: can principal decision-making styles significantly predict teacher
job satisfaction? School Leadership & Management, 2434(May 2015), 1–19.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.723617
Harris, A. (2015). Leading Educational Effectiveness and Improvement: Critical
Reflections and Future Directions in Asia. In THF Workshop Reports 3: Building
Capacity for School Improvement.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (Eds.). (2015). Leading Futures: Global Perspectives on
Educational Leadership. Sage Press.
Hendayana, S. (2010). Perkembangan lesson study di Indonesia: prospek dan
tantanganya (Development of lesson study in Indonesia: its prospects and
challenges). In T. Hidayat, I. Kaniawati, I. Suwarma, A. Setiabudi, & Suhendra
(Eds.), Teori, paradigma, prinsip dan pendekatan pembelajaran MIPA dalam
konteks Indonesia (Theory, Paradigm, Principle and Approach of Mathematics
and Science Learning in Indonesian Context) (pp. 11–40). Bandung: FPMIPA
UPI.
Hendayana, S., Suryadi, D., Karim, M. A., Sukirman, Ariswan, Sutopo, …
Joharmawan, R. (2007). Lesson Study: Suatu strategi untuk meningkatkan
keprofesionalan pendidik (Pengalaman IMSTEP-JICA) (Lesson Study: A
Strategy in Improving Educators’ Professionalism (An IMSTEP-JICA
Experience)). Bandung: UPI Press.
Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and
system improvement: a narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 25(2), 257–281.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885452
Jamil, H. (2014). Teacher is Matter for Education Quality : A Transformation of Policy
for Enhancing the Teaching Profession in Malaysia. Jornal of International
Cooperation in Education, 16(2), 181–196.
Jamil, H., Razak, N. A., Raju, R., & Mohamed, A. R. (2011). Teacher Professional
Development in Malaysia: Issues and Challenges. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Retrieved from http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/cice/publications/sosho4_2-08.pdf
Jones, G. W., & Hagul, P. (2001). Schooling in Indonesia: Crisis-Related and Longer-
Term Issues. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 37(2), 207–231.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00074910152390892
Jones, M., Adams, D., Hwee Joo, M. T., Muniandy, V., Perera, C. J., & Harris, A.
(2015). Contemporary challenges and changes: principals’ leadership practices
in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(3), 353–365.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1056591
Kristiansen, S., & Pratikno. (2006). Decentralising education in Indonesia.
International Journal of Educational Development, 26(5), 513–531.
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 23 of 26
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.12.003
Ladwig, J. G. (2010). Beyond Academic Outcomes. Review of Research in
Education, 34(113).
Lee, M., & Hallinger, P. (2012). National contexts influencing principals’ time use and
allocation: economic development, societal culture, and educational system.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 461–482.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.678862
Lee, M. N. N. (2002). Teacher Education in Malaysia: Current Issues and Future
Prospects. In Educational Change in Malaysia. University Sains Malaysia.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-
research/Pages/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.aspx
Li, L. (2015). Collaboration as a Mediator in the Relationship between Principal
Leadership and Teacher Professional Learning: The Hong Kong Experience. In
Asia Leadership Roundtable (pp. 0–42). Bangkok.
Little, A. W. (2001). Multigrade teaching: Towards an international research and
policy agenda. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 481–497.
Luschei, T. F., & Zubaidah, I. (2012). Teacher training and transitions in rural
Indonesian schools: a case study of Bogor, West Java. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 32(3), 333–350. http://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.711241
Malaklolunthu, S., & Shamsudin, F. (2011). Challenges in school-based
management: Case of a “cluster school” in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1488–1492.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.316
Malakolunthu, S. (2007). Teacher Learning in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: University of
Malaya Press.
Malakolunthu, S., Idris, A. R., & Rengasamy, N. C. (2010). Teacher professional
experience and performance: impact of the work environment and general
welfare in Malaysian secondary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(4),
609–617. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9108-y
Ministry of Education. (2012). Executive Summary: Malaysia Education Blueprint
2013 - 2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary Education). Putrajaya.
Mokshein, S. E., Ahmad, H. H., & Vongalis-Macrow, A. (2009). Secondary Teacher
Policy Research in Asia: Towards Providing Quality Secondary Education:
Training and Retaining Quality Teacher in Malaysia.
Moreno, J. M. (2005). Learning to Teach in the Knowledge Society. World Bank.
Muijs, R. D., Creemers, B. P. M., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Timperley, H., &
Earl, L. (2014). State of the art – teacher effectiveness and professional
learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, (July 2015).
http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451
National Institute of Education. (2013). School Leadership (Vol. 20).
Ng, D. (2015). Instructional leadership practices in Singapore. School Leadership
and Management, (July).
Pereira, J. D. (2016). Beyond a Single Dimension: A Broad Overview for Thinking
about Teacher Quality Research. In THF Workshop Reports 4: Teacher
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 24 of 26
Development: Dimensions and Perspectives.
Ponnusamy, P. A. (2010). The Relationship of Instructional Leadership, Teachers’
Organizational Commitment and Students' Achievement in Small Schools.
Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Quah, S. C. (2011). Instructional leadership among principals of secondary schools
in Malaysia. International Research Journals, 2(December), 1784–1800.
Raffe, D. (2011). Policy borrowing or policy learning? How (not) to improve education
systems. Centre for Educational Sociology (CES).
Raihani. (2008). An Indonesian model of successful school leadership. Journal of
Educational Administration, 46(4), 481–496.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230810882018
Raman, S. R., & Tan, Y. S. (2010). Ethnic segregation in Malaysia’s education
system: enrolment choices, preferential policies and desegregation.
Paedagogica Historica, 46(1-2), 117–131.
Raman, S. R., & Tan, Y. S. (2014). Educational Issues in Multiethnic Malaysia.
Selangor, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre.
Ree, J. de, Muralidharan, K., Pradhan, M., & Rogers, H. (2015). Double for Nothing?
Experimental Evidence on the Impact of an Unconditional Teacher Salary
Increase on Student Performance in Indonesia.
Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, T., Teddlie,
C., & Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-
of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 197–
230. http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885450
Saito, E., Hawe, P., Hadiprawiroc, S., & Empedhe, S. (2008). Initiating education
reform through lesson study at a university in Indonesia. Educational Action
Research, 16(3), 391–406. http://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802260372
Saito, E., Imansyah, H., Isamu, K., & Hendayana, S. (2007). A study on the
partnership between school and university to improve mathematics and science
education in Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development,
27(2), 194–204.
Saito, E., Imansyah, H., Isamu, K., & Hideharu, T. (2006). Indonesian lesson study in
practice: case study of Indonesian Mathematics Science Teacher Education
Project. Journal of In-Service Education, 32(2), 171–84.
Salleh, M. J., & Mohamad, N. A. (2015). Best Practice of Individual Competences in
Strategic Leadership among Principals of Excellent Secondary. International
Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(6), 1–7.
Sari, E. R. (2012). Teacher Professional Development in an Online Learning
Community: A Case Study in Indonesia. Theses and Dissertations.
Scheerens, J. (2014). School, teaching, and system effectiveness: some comments
on three state-of-the-art reviews. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 25(2), 282–290. http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885453
Sekhu. (2011). Practices of Primary School Principals as Instructional Leaders:
Implications For Learner Achievement. University of Pretoria.
Sharma, S., Sun, H., & Kannan, S. (2012). A Comparative Analysis on Leadership
Qualities of School Principal in China, Malaysia & India. International Online
Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 536–543. Retrieved from
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 25 of 26
http://www.iojes.net/userfiles/Article/IOJES_862.pdf
Smith, P., & Bell, L. (2014). Leading Schools in Challenging Circumstances. London:
Bloomsbury.
Sofo, F., Fitzgerald, R., & Jawas, U. (2012). Instructional leadership in Indonesian
school reform: overcoming the problems to move forward. School Leadership &
Management, 32(5), 503–522. http://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.723616
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2013). What is wrong with the “what-went-right” approach in
educational policy? European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 20–33.
http://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2013.12.1.20
Suharti. (2013). Trends in Education in Indonesia. In Education in Indonesia.
Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Sumintono, B., Sheyoputri, E. Y. a., Jiang, N., Misbach, I. H., & Jumintono. (2015).
Becoming a principal in Indonesia: possibility, pitfalls and potential. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 8791(September), 1–11.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1056595
Suratno, T. (2009a). Lesson study in Indonesia: the case of Indonesia university of
education.
Suratno, T. (2009b). Teacher reflection in Indonesia: Lessons learned from a lesson
study program.
Suratno, T. (2012). Lesson study in Indonesia: an Indonesia University of Education
experience. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(3), 196–
215. http://doi.org/10.1108/20468251211256410
Suratno, T., & Cock, K. (2009). A school-university partnership in Indonesia. Lessons
learned from lesson study. In C. P. Lim, K. Cock, G. Lock, & C. Brook (Eds.),
Innovative Practices in Pre-Service Teacher Education: An Asia-Pacific
Perspectives (pp. 69–89). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.
Suratno, T., & Iskandar, S. (2010). Teacher reflection in Indonesia: Lessons learnt
from a lesson study program. US-China Education Review, 7(12), 39–48.
http://doi.org/December 2010
Suraya, W. H., & Yunus, J. N. (2012). Principal Leadership Styles in High-Academic
Performance of Selected Secondary Schools in Kelantan Darulnaim.
International Journal of Independent Research and Studies, 1(2), 57–67.
Retrieved from http://www.pdoaj.com/pdf-files/PA_IJIRS_20120183.pdf
Suryadarma, D., & Jones, G. W. (2013). Meeting the Educational Challenge. In
Education in Indonesia. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Suryahadi, A., & Samabodho, P. (2013). An Assessment of Policies to Improve
Teacher Quality and Reduce Teacher Absenteeism. In Education in Indonesia.
Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Thomas, C., & Shaw, C. (1992). Issues in the development of multigrade schools. In
World Bank Technical Paper No. 172. Washington: World Bank.
Tie, F. H. (2011). Leadership for Learning in Malaysian Schools. In International
Handbook of Leadership for Learning (pp. 209–223). Netherlands: Springer.
http://doi.org/DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1350-5
UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good? Paris.
Usman, S., Akhmadi, & Suryadarma, D. (2007). Patterns of Teacher Absence in
Public Primary Schools in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(2),
School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia
Page 26 of 26
207–219. http://doi.org/10.1080/02188790701378826
Young, M. S. (2010). A Case of the Global-Local Dialectic: Decentralization and
Teacher Training in Banten, Indonesia. Electronic Theses, Treatises and
Dissertations.