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

6. 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

7. 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. 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 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. 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

22. 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

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

24. 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. 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

26. Contact Information:
Rita Karam