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)

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

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

Research Questions How is SBM implemented in Indonesia? What factors facilitate SBM implementation? How is SBM associated with student outcomes?

We Developed a Framework to Guide the Policy Questions Support Provided to Schools Implemen-tation Guidelines Resources Training/profes sional development Monitoring/ feedback School Capacity to Implement   Monetary/time resources Principal and teacher leadership Stakeholders’ qualification Stakeholders’ knowledge of roles and responsibilities Status of SBM Implemen-tation   Organizational structure Autonomy Stakeholder involvement (voice) Transparency/ accountability Intermediate Outcomes   Resource allocation Teaching materials Curriculum Instruction Teacher/stude nt attendance Parent satisfaction Facility improvements Ultimate Outcomes   Student learning

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

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)

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

Today, Selected Results Are Presented Regarding Implementation of SBM’s key components Support factors facilitating SBM implementation Associations between SBM and student achievement

Today, Selected Results Are Presented Regarding Implementation of SBM’s key components Support factors facilitating SBM implementation Associations between SBM and student achievement

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

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

Implementation of Autonomy (1) Majority of principals reported making final decisions regarding school operations

Implementation of Autonomy (2) But rarely did principals make final decisions on their own

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

Implementation of Accountability (1) District supervisors monitored schools more frequently than other stakeholders

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

Today, Selected Results Are Presented Regarding Implementation of SBM’s key components Support factors facilitating SBM implementation Associations between SBM and student achievement

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

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 School-parent relationship School responsiveness -.65** +.70** Provision of information -.52*** +.21* +.41*** Region (versus Java) Kalimantan -.46* -.54*** Papua -.83* Sumatera -.31* Sulawesi -.37* Maluku -.61* -1.1*** Urban school -.35* -.41* Sample size (schools) 355 358 Explained variance (R2) .26 .29 .16 .17

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 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 352 Explained variance (R2) .23

Today, Selected Results Are Presented Regarding Implementation of SBM’s key components Support factors facilitating SBM implementation Associations between SBM and student achievement

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

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

Contact Information: Rita Karam karam@rand.org