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
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)
2
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
3
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
4
11-Sep-2012
Research Questions
• How is SBM implemented in Indonesia?
• What factors facilitate SBM implementation?
• How is SBM associated with student outcomes?
5
11-Sep-2012
We Developed a Framework to Guide the
Policy Questions
Support
Provided
to Schools
School
Capacity
to Implement
Status of SBM
Implementation
Implementation
Monetary/time
resources
Organizational
structure
Guidelines
Principal and
teacher
leadership
Autonomy
Resources
Training/profes
sional
development
Stakeholders’
qualification
Monitoring/
feedback
Stakeholders’
knowledge of
roles and
responsibilities
Intermediate
Outcomes
Ultimate
Outcomes
Resource
allocation
Student
learning
Teaching
materials
Stakeholder
involvement
(voice)
Curriculum
Transparency/
accountability
Teacher/stude
nt attendance
Instruction
Parent
satisfaction
Facility
improvements
6
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
7
11-Sep-2012
Study Design (2)
• 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)
8
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
9
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
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
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
12
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
13
11-Sep-2012
Implementation of Autonomy (1)
• Majority of principals reported making final
decisions regarding school operations
14
11-Sep-2012
Implementation of Autonomy (2)
• But rarely did principals make final decisions on
their own
15
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
16
11-Sep-2012
Implementation of Accountability (1)
• District supervisors monitored schools more
frequently than other stakeholders
17
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
18
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
19
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
20
11-Sep-2012
Support Factors Facilitating
School Autonomy
School Final
Decision (ES)
Principal
Influence (ES)
District support
Adequacy of teacher training
Number of days of teacher training
Capacity
Years of teaching
Principal education (versus high school)
Principal preparedness
Influence
District
Principal
School-parent relationship
School responsiveness
Provision of information
Region (versus Java)
Kalimantan
Papua
Sumatera
Sulawesi
Maluku
Urban school
Sample size (schools)
Explained variance (R2)
Teacher
Influence (ES)
Parental
Input (ES)
+.65***
+.06*
-.02**
-.77***
+.48**
+.89****
-.46***
+.44**
+.28***
NA
-.65**
-.52***
NA
+.70**
+.41***
+.21*
-.46*
-.83*
-.52***
-.54***
-.31*
-.37*
-1.1***
-.61*
-.35*
-.41*
355
.26
358
.29
355
.16
355
.17
21
11-Sep-2012
Support Factors Facilitating
School Accountability
Frequency of District Monitoring (ES)
Number of days principal met
with district
Information provided to parents
.02*
0.23***
Capacity
Years teaching
Teacher 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
Explained variance (R2)
352
.23
22
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
23
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*
+.02***
+.03**
Teacher certification
+.06**
+.07***
Years in teaching
+.03***
+.01**
Principal preparedness
+.13*
+.76**
Student attendance
Capacity
Curriculum standard level 4 (versus standard level 1)
+.28*
Region (versus Java)
Kalimantan
-.17*
Papua
-.23*
Bali
-.37***
Sulawesi
-.18*
Maluku
-.40**
Sample size (students/teachers)
Explained variance (R2)
-.23**
7,164 / 348
.18
7,350 / 355
.07
24
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
25
11-Sep-2012
Contact Information:
Rita Karam
karam@rand.org
26
11-Sep-2012