metadata: authors: 0: author: Chen,Dandan
count: Indonesia
docna: 0: docna: School-based management, school
            decision-making and education outcomes in Indonesian primary schools
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Educational Sciences,Educational Institutions & Facilities,Educational Populations,Education for Development (superceded),Educational Policy and Planning - Textbook,Effective Schools and Teachers,Education For All
teratopic: Social Protections and Labor,Education
abstracts: cdata!: This paper examines the key aspects of
            the practices of school-based management in Indonesia, and
            its effect on education quality. Using a conceptual
            framework of an accountability system of public service
            delivery, the paper explores the relations among Indonesian
            parents, school committees, schools, and government
            education supervisory bodies from three tenets:
            participation and voice; autonomy; and accountability. Using
            the data from a nationally representative survey of about
            400 public primary schools in Indonesia, the paper finds
            that the level of parental participation and voice in school
            management is extremely low in Indonesia. While the role of
            school committees is still limited to community relations,
            school facilities, and other administrative areas of school
            management, school principals, together with teachers, are
            much more empowered to assert professional control of the
            schools. The accountability system has remained weak in
            Indonesia's school system, which is reflected by
            inadequate information flow to parents, as well as seemingly
            low parental awareness of the need to hold schools
            accountable. The accountability arrangement of the
            Indonesian school system currently puts more emphasis on
            top-down supervision and monitoring by government
            supervisory bodies. The findings show that although the
            scope of school-based management in Indonesia is limited, it
            has begun to help schools make the right decisions on
            allocation of resources and hiring additional (non-civil
            servant) teachers, and to create an enabling environment of
            learning, including increasing teacher attendance rates.
            These aspects are found to have significantly positive
            effects on student learning outcomes.
geo_reg_key: 517198,517191
repnme: repnme: School-based management, school
            decision-making and education outcomes in Indonesian primary schools
display_title: School-based management, school
            decision-making and education outcomes in Indonesian primary schools
listing_relative_url: /research/2011/09/15118122/school-based-management-school-decision-making-education-outcomes-indonesian-primary-schools
topicv3: Teachers Management m1326119 1523,Textbooks m1326802 2129,Teacher Absenteeism m1327035 1528,Education m1327048 470,School-Based Management m1327730 2143
publishtoextweb_dt: 2011-09-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Social Protections and Labor,Education
no_of_pages: 37
author_keys: 0: author_key: 452883
model_extractions: WPS5809 Policy Research Working Paper 5809 School-Based Management, School Decision-Making and Education Outcomes in Indonesian Primary Schools _Dandan Chen_ The World Bank East Asia and Pacific Region Education Sector Unit September 2011
Policy Research Working Paper 5809

# **Abstract**

This paper examines the key aspects of the practices of school-based management in Indonesia, and its effect on education quality. Using a conceptual framework of an accountability system of public service delivery, the paper explores the relations among Indonesian parents, school committees, schools, and government education supervisory bodies from three tenets: participation and voice; autonomy; and accountability.

Using the data from a nationally representative survey of about 400 public primary schools in Indonesia, the paper finds that the level of parental participation and voice in school management is extremely low in Indonesia. While the role of school committees is still limited to community relations, school facilities, and other administrative areas of school management, school principals, together with teachers, are much more empowered to assert professional control of the schools. The accountability system has remained weak in Indonesia’s school system, which is reflected by inadequate information flow to parents, as well as seemingly low parental awareness of the need to hold schools accountable. The accountability arrangement of the Indonesian school system currently puts more emphasis on top-down supervision and monitoring by government supervisory bodies.

The findings show that although the scope of schoolbased management in Indonesia is limited, it has begun to help schools make the right decisions on allocation of resources and hiring additional (non-civil servant) teachers, and to create an enabling environment of learning, including increasing teacher attendance rates. These aspects are found to have significantly positive effects on student learning outcomes.

This paper is a product of the Education Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The author may be contacted at dchen1@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# **School-based Management, School Decision-Making and Education Outcomes in Indonesian Primary Schools**

Dandan Chen<sup>1</sup>

**Key words** : School-based management; Decentralization; Accountability; Learning outcome; School financing; School committee. (JEL: 1C, 14P).

> 1 Chen: Human Development Department, East Asia and Pacific Region (email: dchen1@worldbank.org). I thank Imam Setiawan for the excellent research assistance. Eduardo Velez Bustillo provided comments on an earlier draft of the paper.
# **I. Introduction and conceptual framework**

Governments around the world are introducing a range of strategies aimed at improving the delivery of education services. One such strategy is to decentralize education decision making by increasing parental and community involvement in schools, which is commonly known as school-based management (SBM). The argument in favor of SBM is that decentralizing decision-making authority to parents and communities fosters demand and ensures that schools provide the social and economic benefits that best reflect the priorities and values of those local communities. An increasing number of developing countries are implementing SBM reforms aimed at empowering principals, teachers, and parents, or at strengthening their motivation, thereby enhancing their sense of ownership of the school. Many of these reforms have led to greater involvement of communities and parents and, in turn, have had a direct influence on educational quality. In particular, it has been found that increased participation, autonomy, and accountability are the three most important changes associated with improved quality of education and better learning outcomes.

The 2004 World Development Report (WDR) ―Making Services Work for Poor People‖ (World Bank 2003) provides a conceptual framework for this phenomenon. The framework is presented as a three-cornered relationship between citizens, politicians, and service providers. The service provision and accountability relationships between these actors is complex, as even within each group of actors there are usually heterogeneous sub-groups, and the incentives and accountability relationships that work for one group may be different from those that work for other groups. When accountability fails, the failure can be tracked either to the long route between providers and users through policymakers, or to the short route between service providers and users directly. Sometimes improving the long route is a long-term process and, in some situations, may not be doable. In these cases, the WDR 2004 suggests strengthening the short route between providers and users (Figure 1).

2
<!-- Start of picture text --> jong route of accountability<br>the state<br>politicians policymakers<br>bz}<br>2» &<br>S5<br>o<br>non-poor poor client frontline organization<br>power<br>services<br><!-- End of picture text -->
rewards for delivering effective services and penalize those who fail to deliver (― _compact_ ‖).

The worldwide evidence on school-based management is well summarized in ― _Decentralized Decision-Making in Schools_ ‖ (World Bank, 2009). The general finding is that SBM shows positive results on mainly reducing grade repetition and failure, and improving teacher attendance rates, contrasted with the mixed results in test scores.

# **II. Indonesian context**

Indonesia is a very large country geographically, with more than 200,000 schools nationwide. Decentralizing service delivery is a natural response to concerns about the ability of central policymakers to respond to the needs of a large and diverse country. Since 2002, Indonesia has sought to address structural problems in the legal and legislative framework governing education service delivery. The government has formalized first SBM-principles with Decree No. 044/U/2002 (Ministry of Education, 2002) on the Education Board and School Committees (SC). The Decree defined the school committee as the community representative body at the school level with membership comprising parents, community leaders, education professionals, private sector, education associations, teachers, NGOs and village officials. It must comprise a minimum of nine members and the chairperson must come from outside the school.

The idea of the school committee is based on the enlargement of the old style BP3 (Parents-Teachers Association) and aimed at accommodating wider participation from the parents and the community, empowering them in decision making, and holding schools accountable so as to improve education access and quality on the ground. The expectation was that SBM would lead to more efficient use of resources and improved student achievement. The Decree explicitly stipulates that SC objectives should include: (1) to accommodate aspirations of the community on operational policies and education sector programs at the education unit (school level); (2) to encourage more community roles in education provision at the school level; and (3) to facilitate the establishment of education service provision at the school level in a transparent and accountable manner.

Education Law No. 20/2003 also defines the District Education Board as an independent body representing civil society at the district level with the aim of improving 4
education service delivery. The committee supports this improvement by: (1) providing _advice_ to assist in determining the school program and policy; (2) providing _support_ such as financial support, ideas, and activities for the implementation of the school program; (3) providing _control_ over school programs for transparency and accountability; and (4) providing _mediation and communication_ between the school and the community.

Compared to international practices particularly in Latin America, the practice of SBM in Indonesian is very much limited in public schools. The majority of the teachers are public civil servants, whom the schools have no power to hire or fire. In theory, schools have only control over non-salary operational expenditures, even though the discretionary resources are commonly used to hire additional contract teachers.

International partners have supported SBM in Indonesia for more than 10 years. The Ministry of National Education (MoNE) has even established a SBM Secretariat to integrate programs. The donor programs that can be broadly categorized as supporting SBM include: Creating Learning Communities for Children (CLCC) with UNICEF and UNESCO; Decentralized Basic Education Project (DBEP) with Asian Development Bank; Regional Education Development and Improvement Program (REDIP) with JICA; Managing Basic Education and Decentralized Basic Education (DBE) with USAID; and Australia Indonesia Basic Education Program (AIBEP) with AusAID.

There is a small but growing research literature devoted to school-based management in Indonesia. The evidence on school committees is based mainly on qualitative case studies across a range of provinces. The SMERU Institute studies from 2005 and 2008 focused on school committee participation in school management, as well as the school budgeting process that accompanies receiving the BOS block grants (RAPBS). They found school committees were often dominated by school principals, with the help of selected teachers. Committees generally concentrated in raising funds for the school to use on facilities, and rarely entered into areas related to teaching and learning. Participation within the committees was limited, and often dominated by the committee leader, who may be a respected figure in the community (such as a former school principal). However, these committees were seen as potentially effective communicators of complaints from parents about actions within the school, including disciplinary episodes.

5
A number of factors appear to contribute to the relatively weak position of the school committee vis-à-vis school personnel, especially the principal. The first is that committees are not perceived as having relevant expertise for entering into questions related to management, teaching and learning. Another factor was referred to as an institutional legitimacy issue, since the school principal receives his/her decree from the district office, while the school committee is appointed locally. Finally, with the introduction of the ―School Operational Assistance‖<sup>2</sup> ( _Batuan Operasional Sekolah, BOS_ ) grants, one of the main historical functions of the school committees—raising funds—has been reduced in importance (SMERU, 2005, 2008).

The school’s use of the BOS grant money is another area of research. The main benefit from the program appears to be the supplanting of school-based fees, at least in rural areas (SMERU, 2008). This does not mean that local fees have been abolished, but the additional funds appear to be used to purchase the materials and inputs that were financed largely by parental fees before. This in turn has positive implications for participation, since the price of school has in effect been lowered.

As for how schools use the grant money, the evidence is mixed. As mentioned in Sweeting et al. (2003-07), on the one hand there are instances of qualitative improvements, for example, through enhanced teacher training. But the evidence suggests a general emphasis on materials and physical infrastructure, rather than learning processes. Also, not every community has necessarily welcomed the BOS program. In some urban areas there is evidence of schools declining BOS in favor of maintaining a school fee system that generates more resources, although this puts more pressure on the poorest families. In other areas there are concerns about district-level diverting of the funds. Finally, there is the concern raised above that one side effect of the BOS program is that it indirectly weakens the position of the school committee given its historical role as local fundraiser.

> 2 Capitation grant to primary and junior secondary schools started in 2005, currently in the amount of about US$ 40 per pupil at primary level, and approximately US$ 60 at junior secondary level.

6
<!-- Start of picture text --> Sample Districts<br>Sy eae me B OX , £5<br>* Reet os Sp power Fe<br>a ges Re” Apes we =><br>SER. UE ES Sem<br>a =r ae ms SS ORS<br>~ Wide ey —eT a X<br>Ve bees, me 3 = = ae, el 8<br>| Sp, _ vd<br><!-- End of picture text -->
surveyed parents did not actively choose schools, even though nearly 70% do have other choices in the same village (Figure 3).

**Figure 3: Parental choice of schools**

<!-- Start of picture text --> How many other schools applied?<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Is the school the only school in<br>village?<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> One other<br>school applied<br>9%<br>Yes<br>32%<br>Two other<br>Not applied any schools<br>other school 1%<br>90% More than two<br>other schools No<br>0% 68%<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Source: SBM Survey 2010, World Bank_ .

Parental involvement in school affairs tends to be low. The limited involvement is mainly interactions with teachers or principals on issues related to their own children, or attending regular parents’ meetings with schools. Over 80% of the parents have neither provided any inputs to school, nor volunteered in school activities, such as serving as a committee member, helping classroom activities, or raising funds for schools (Figure 4).

8
**Figure 4: Parental participation of school affairs**

<!-- Start of picture text --> 100%<br>90%<br>80%<br>70%<br>60%<br>50%<br>40%<br>30%<br>20%<br>10%<br>0%<br>Talked with Attended Talked with Helped with Provided Served on a Volunteered<br>your child’s schoolwide your child’s fundraising input on how committee in the<br>teacher meetings for principal the school (other than classroom<br>parents budget will School (e.g., help<br>be spent Committee) with<br>classroom<br>activities<br>never once multiple times<br><!-- End of picture text --> School management and autonomy is the second tenet of SBM. Even though Indonesia cancelled the school/university autonomy law in early 2010, the survey shows that in practice, school principals continue enjoying much freedom of decision-making at schools. They generally feel much empowered in influencing various aspects of educational management: student admission; school timetable; budget and planning; managing teachers; school facilities as well as teaching and learning materials including curriculum contents. They appear to have both ―administrative control‖ and ―professional control‖ of the school activities (Figure 5).

9
**Figure 5: School principals’ influence on various school affairs**

**During this school year (2009-2010), as principal how influential are you over the following aspects of your school?**

<!-- Start of picture text --> 100%<br>90%<br>80%<br>70%<br>60%<br>50%<br>40%<br>30%<br>20%<br>10%<br>0%<br>Setting Allocating Planning and Drafting the Planning Purchasing Determining Determining Choosing Determining Hiring and Setting the<br>student BOS funds allocating the school’s school supplies and the content school textbooks lesson firing of non- school’s<br>admission school work plan facility materials of teacher calendar and content and PNS vision,<br>criteria budget professional instructional syllabi teachers mission,<br>development materials and/or goals<br>1. not influential 2. little influential 3. quite influential 4. much influential<br><!-- End of picture text --> In comparison, school committees largely feel less control of school decisionmaking. School committees report that their most influential area is community-school relations, following by planning for school facility improvement. Around half of the school committees in the survey responded that they had little or no influence on school vision and mission, budget allocation and work plan.

**Figure 6: School committee’s influence on various school affairs**

<!-- Start of picture text --> During this school year (2009-2010), how influential is SC over the following aspects of the school?<br>100<br>90<br>80<br>70<br>60<br>50<br>40<br>30<br>20<br>10<br>0<br>Community- Planning to School vision, Allocation of School work Student School Teacher Teacher Curriculum School Textbook<br>school improve mission, BOS funds plan enrollment budget performance hiring calendar choice<br>relationship school facilty and/or goals and planning and or evaluation<br>admissions allocation<br>not influential 2.little influential 3.quite influential 4. much influential<br><!-- End of picture text --> The least influenced areas by school committees fall under the ―professional control‖ side of the school: textbooks choice, school calendar, curriculum, and teacher management.

10
The dichotomy of principal vs. school committee on school management is to some extent understandable within the institutional context. With the ownership of the Indonesian public schools still falls under the government, and generally categorized as ―technical unit‖ in the government structure with assigned budget headings, the principal, as an appointed government employee, is responsible for this ―unit‖ and allocated public budget. With increased share of public funding at school level in recent years, it is natural to expect that the principal’s role is likely to be enlarged.

The third tenet of SBM is transparency and accountability. Regarding information flow from schools to parents, the report card on individual child’s academic performance, mostly semester test results, is regularly sent to parents, and they are generally easy for parents to understand (Figure 7).

**Figure 7: School report card received by parents**

<!-- Start of picture text --> How often receive report card (2009-10) How understandable is report card<br>60 70<br>60<br>50<br>50<br>40<br>40<br>30<br>30<br>20<br>20<br>10<br>10<br>0 0<br>Never Once Every Quarterly Monthly Weekly Very easy Somewhat easy Somewhat Very difficult<br>semester difficult<br>% %<br><!-- End of picture text --> Beyond report cards on students’ performance at school, other information regarding school activities and management is not commonly communicated to parents. Only about 20% of the parents surveyed responded that they received some information on overall school performance<sup>5</sup> . Similarly quite low share of parents reported that they learned anything about school finance or were encouraged to volunteer in school activities. Only half of the parents interviewed actually received any information about school and student activities (Figure 8, left panel).

> 5 This is not well defined, a weakness of the survey.

11
**Figure 8: Information flow to parents and parental satisfaction**

# **% of parents reporting school provided information in various areas**

<!-- Start of picture text --> 100.00% Parental satisfaction<br>100%<br>90.00%<br>90%<br>80.00%<br>80%<br>70.00%<br>70%<br>60.00%<br>60%<br>50.00% 50% Very satisfied<br>40.00% 40% Satisfied<br>30.00% 30% Dissatisfied<br>20.00% 20% Very dissatisfied<br>10.00% 10%<br>0.00% 0%<br>School Donations/aids Opportunities for School and/or Overall, how satisfied are Overall, how satisfied are Overall, how satisfied are<br>performance received by the parent involvement student activities you with The management you with The quality of you with Your child’s<br>school in the school of this school education at this school teacher<br><!-- End of picture text --> Paradoxically, with little interaction with schools, and infrequent information supplied by schools, a large majority of parents are either satisfied or very satisfied with school quality, management, and their children’s teachers (Figure 8, right panel). This appears to cast doubt on whether the accountability of schools to parents would work in Indonesia, where community harmony is highly valued, and a majority of parents are reserved and do not openly complain or express dissatisfaction.

This doubt is somewhat verified by the responses of schools and districts on the pressure they felt for improving education quality. Of those surveyed, 68% of the principals and 63% of the district education officers responded that there was little to no pressure from parents to improve education. The school committees, district education boards (DEB), and school inspectors seem to view the pressure as slightly higher. However, they are in general on the ―giving‖ end, but not the ―receiving‖ end of the pressure, and thus may have biased views on the pressure that parents actually put on schools (Figure 9).

12
**Figure 9: Pressure from parents to improve student performance: viewed by various stakeholders**

<!-- Start of picture text --> 43% 39%<br>68% 63% 60% 56%<br>57% 61%<br>33% 37% 40% 44%<br>Principal District Sub-district District School SC chair<br>education edu. Off. education inspector<br>office board<br>strong to very strong no to weak pressure<br><!-- End of picture text --> The bottom-up pressure from parents seems weak in Indonesia’s public primary schools, but the top-down pressure from government supervisory bodies is slightly more significant. Figure 10 shows that schools are frequently visited by school inspectors from the district education office. Schools on average receive nearly 6 visits by the district school inspectors per year. This is somewhat verified by the district’s response that quarterly and monthly school visits are common by the districts.

**Figure 10: School visits by district**

<!-- Start of picture text --> Since the beginning of this school year (2009- Frequency of district visiting schools<br>2010), how many times have schools received (Reported by District education officer)<br>monitoring visit by varies authorities , according<br>to principal 45<br>40<br>5.8<br>35<br>30<br>25<br>2.6<br>1.5 20<br>15<br>0.2<br>10<br>School Committee District or sub- Other district or Education Board 5<br>member(s) district education sub-district member(s) 0<br>supervisor(s) education<br>(pengawas) representative(s) 1.Never 2.Every 3.Every 4.Every 5.Every 6.Every<br>year semester quarter month week<br>%<br><!-- End of picture text --> What happened during and after the district’s visit to schools? Even though the visits are frequent, it seems that the key aspects of quality assurance and consequences are missing from these visits. For example, monitoring instruction inside classrooms is not commonly covered during these visits, and reviewing the school budget is also not a 13
routine task of the supervisors. This leads to the question of what the feedback given to principals and teachers is mostly based on, or whether the evaluations and feedback, together with other inspection areas (i.e. school facility and administrative procedures) are superficial.

In addition, the consequences for poor performance rarely lead to any high-stake actions. The most common measure taken for a low-performing principal is a transfer to another school or placement with a mentor. Demotion and firing would only happen with more serious offenses (Figure 11).

# **Figure 11: Top-down accountability**

<!-- Start of picture text --> Purpose of Dinas visit Whether measures are taken by Dinas for principal low<br>(reported by Dinas) performance (reported by Dinas)<br>100% 100%<br>90% 90%<br>80% 80%<br>70% 70%<br>60% 60%<br>50% 50%<br>40% 40%<br>30% 30%<br>20% 20%<br>10% 10%<br>0% 0%<br>feedback on Provide conditions of Check feedback on Provide Review school Review and discuss instruction in Monitor Reassigned the Provided Gave Provided Demoted Fired the<br>principal’s school teacher’s policies and school budget classroom principal to mentor notification training principal back principal<br>performance buildings and performance procedures another school letter to teacher or<br>facilities administrator<br>0 No 1 Yes 1.Yes 3.No<br><!-- End of picture text --> In brief, Indonesia has joined the global trend of decentralization of educational decision-making. Schools are empowered to make decisions on administrative and technical matters. However, Indonesia does not seem to get the best from the current SBM practice. The level of parental participation, transparency, and accountability needs to be elevated to enable the country to reap the full benefit of SBM in improving the quality of education.

# **IV. Estimating the effects of school decision-making**

This section provides empirical evidence on whether school level decisionmaking actually leads to improved education outcomes in Indonesia. The scope of school decision-making in the country is still limited, given that a majority of teachers are civil servants, who are assigned to schools. Therefore decision-making at the school level is limited to its relatively small discretionary resource envelope. But there are key areas in which schools can and have been making choices. We look into two of these areas: 14
<!-- Start of picture text --> Learning<br>i<br>school<br>Capacityi to Drivesveand<br>i actions for<br>delivery results results<br>VSrE—s<br>Autonomy Accountable for<br>“5 h ” results<br>Bent “responsibility”<br>Bottom up<br>Top down (voice/<br>participation)<br>tae:bodiesi zst° CommunitiesParents ; “<br><!-- End of picture text -->
# **Table 1: Empirical approach to estimate school decision-making and its effects on school results**

||_Equations_|
|---|---|
||_(1)_<br>_(2) (3) (4)_|
||<br>_Outcome equation_<br> <br>_School decision/_<br>_intermediate outcome_<br>_equation_|
|Dependent :|_Learning outcome_<br>_-Resource use_<br>_-Non-PNS hiring_<br>_-Teacher attendance_|
|Explanatory:||
|_School level_<br>:||
||Resources<br>Resources|
||Principal experiences<br>Principal experiences|
||Teacher qualification<br>Teacher qualification|
||Teacher experiences<br>Teacher experiences|
||Various training<br>Various training|
||Resource allocation|
||Teacher hiring|
||Teacher attendance|
|_Government level :_||
||Report requirement|
||Meetings and visits|
||Rewards and sanctions|
|_Community level:_||
||Report to parents and<br>communities on results|
||Multiple schools to choose<br>from|
||Pressures to schools<br>Direct participation in<br>school mgmt|
||Parental resources|
||parental education|

A two-step procedure is used to address the endogeneity of school decision variables when explaining the school outcome. As summarized in Table 1, the first step 16
estimates school decision equations of (1) school budget allocation for student activities, particularly in support of learning such as remedial learning activities; and (2) the number of non-civil service (―non-PNS‖) teachers hired by schools. We also include in the first step the estimation of one important intermediate outcome measure: teacher attendance rate. The predicted values of the first step dependent variables will serve as key variables to explain the school outcome: test scores of Indonesian language and math.

While school capacity variables such as principal and teachers’ qualification and experiences enter both equations, the ―accountability‖ variables only affect school outcomes through influencing school decision-making, and thus they are excluded from the 2<sup>nd</sup> step estimation. In the meantime, parental educational background and resources are regarded as only affecting learning outcome directly. This is a reasonable assumption as highly educated or well-heeled parents can only be highly influential if they are involved in school activities in the first place. The descriptive statistics of the variables used in the estimation are presented in Annex 1.

The sample includes 383 schools. 13 schools in the survey actually responded that they do not have school committees, and thus are excluded from the sample. Using discretionary funding for hiring non-civil service teachers seems to be a common phenomenon, even though the student-teacher ratio is very low at average of 15:1 for the sample. On average, 30% of the teachers in the surveyed schools are non-civil service teachers (Figure 13).

# **Figure 13: STR and share of non-civil service teachers**

a. Student-teacher ratio b. Share of non-civil service teachers <!-- Start of picture text --> 0 10 20 30 40 0 .2 .4 .6 .8<br>STR share of non PNS teachers<br>.2<br>.15<br>.1<br>.05<br>0<br>.15<br>.1<br>.05<br>0<br><!-- End of picture text --> 17
Teacher absenteeism has been an issue in Indonesia. Chaudhury et al (2006) reported that 19% of Indonesian teachers were absent from work. Our survey relies on the principal’s estimate, and has a much better record of 6% absence rate. However, the variations remain large from school to school.

We use the average test scores for Indonesian language and math to measure the school outcome. The test is administered to the Grade 5 students in surveyed schools, and designed based on the core curriculum requirements. Students generally fair better in language than in math. Language test score also shows smaller standard deviation than math score.

**Figure 14: Distribution of Indonesian language and math test score**

<!-- Start of picture text --> a. Indonesian language b. Math<br>0 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 100<br>average bahasa score average math schore<br>.15<br>.1<br>.05<br>0<br>.3<br>.2<br>.1<br>0<br><!-- End of picture text --> The results of first step estimates are presented in Table 2<sup>6</sup> . For schools’ direct spending on student activities, in addition to the significant effect of schools’ total budget and total enrollment, the result shows that the amount of spending is significantly affected by the influence of districts or subdistricts. Schools that reported districts/subdistrict as ―very influential‖ over schools ―planning and budget allocation‖ allocated more funds directly to support student activities. In addition, schools that send parents information on BOS spending also spend more on their students directly. Schools with a committee chair with at least senior secondary education also tend to spend more on

> 6 Full results in Annex 2.

18
students. Somewhat consistent with the effect of the district/subdistrict’s influence, schools with more teachers trained at the district level during the previous year also allocate greater spending on students.

The district/subdistrict’s influence is also shown in the school’s decision to hire non-civil service teachers. It seems that when there is more influence of districts on schools’ ―professional‖ aspect (i.e., selection of textbooks and other instructional materials), schools are more likely to hire additional non-civil servant teachers. Various school committee-related activities appear to have different effects on teacher hiring. Schools that report student performance to their school committees tend to hire more teachers. In the mean time, more active schools committees - as reflected by more frequently reporting of committee activities to parents; or more school committee meetings with parents and communities - seem to reduce the additional teacher hiring.

Controlling for total enrollment, schools with fewer civil-service teachers do tend to hire more non-civil service teachers. This shows that hiring additional teachers does have a compensatory effect, equalizing the student-teacher ratio across schools. One interesting finding is that better teacher management and training is negatively associated with additional teacher hiring. The results in Table 3 show that the share of teachers in schools receiving evaluations from the principal, and the share of teachers receiving training on handling classroom discipline issues and general classroom management, have significant and negative effects on additional teacher hiring. This may reflect a quality-quantity trade-off of teachers.

19
# **Table 2:1**<sup>**st**</sup> **Step estimates: School decisions and intermediate outcome**

|||Expenditur<br>_bk08__|e on student<br>_as03E_|Number o<br>teac<br>_T_no_|f non-PNS<br>hers<br>_nPNS_|Teacher<br>r<br>_Teache_|attendance<br>ate<br>_r_attend_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|VARIABLES||coef|se|coef|se|coef|se|
|_Top down:_||||||||
|_Ibk05_ao01a4|Dummy, =1 if very influential district/sub district over planning and<br>allocating school's budget|4.201e+06**|(2.078e+06)|0.0878|(0.460)|3.702|(3.675)|
|_Ibk05_ao01c3|Dummy, =1 if somewhat influential district/sub district over determining<br>the content of teacher professional development|1.647e+06|(2.357e+06)|-0.336|(0.523)|7.359*|(4.175)|
|_Ibk05_ao01c4|<br>Dummy, =1 if very influential district/sub district over determining the<br>content of teacher professional development|-1.128e+06|(2.550e+06)|-0.352|(0.566)|9.723**|(4.518)|
|_Ibk05_ao01d2|<br>Dummy, =1 if little influential district/sub district over selecting textbooks<br>and instructional materials|-2.088e+06|(1.870e+06)|0.592|(0.415)|-5.588*|(3.312)|
|_Ibk05_ao01d3|Dummy, =1 if somewhat influential district/sub district over selecting<br>textbooks and instructional materials|-1.340e+06|(1.719e+06)|0.680*|(0.381)|-2.998|(3.045)|
|_Ibk05_ao01d4|Dummy, =1 if very influential district/sub district over selecting textbooks<br>and instructional materials|-1.403e+06|(2.052e+06)|0.868*|(0.456)|-6.011*|(3.636)|
|bk05_ao03x|Dummy, =1 if principal have attended a meeting with the district education<br>office staff|4.834e+06|(4.212e+06)|1.961**|(0.935)|-1.277|(7.462)|
|_Bottom up:_||||||||
|_Ibk05_ks03a1|Dummy, =1 if the roles of school committee is to provide inputs in the<br>allocation of BOS funds|2.172e+06|(1.534e+06)|-0.254|(0.340)|4.795*|(2.718)|
|bk05_pt07A|Dummy, =1 if school send all parents written information about school<br>performance|-706,430|(1.274e+06)|0.377|(0.283)|-<br>6.539***|<br>(2.256)|
|bk05_pt07B|<br>Dummy, =1 if school send all parents written information about use of BOS<br>funds|2.432e+06*|(1.450e+06)|0.00623|(0.321)|0.712|(2.566)|
|bk05_pt07C|Dummy, =1 if school send all parents written information about school<br>committee activities|1.637e+06|(1.488e+06)|-0.565*|(0.330)|1.829|(2.637)|
|bk06_ks20A|Dummy, =1 if School Committee received information on the school's<br>teachers and their performance|-2.048e+06|(1.357e+06)|-0.0605|(0.300)|4.061*|(2.396)|
|bk06_ks20B|Dummy, =1 if School Committee received information on students and<br>their performance|2.029e+06|(1.770e+06)|0.713*|(0.393)|-4.641|(3.137)|
|age_chair|<br>Age of School committee Chairman|-27,396|(57,469)|-0.0109|(0.0128)|0.207**|(0.102)|
|D_edu_chair|Dummy, =1 if School Committee Chair has education senior secondary or<br>above|2.158e+06*|(1.227e+06)|-0.0288|(0.272)|4.001*|(2.172)|
|bk06_ks08xC|Dummy, =1 if School Committee held meetings with parents and/or<br>community members|-256,234|(1.333e+06)|-0.515*|(0.296)|3.624|(2.360)|
|_School_<br>_characteristics and_<br>_capacity_||||||||
|bk08_as03R|School total budget|0.0141***|(0.00243)|9.13e-10*|(5.38e-10)|8.21e-<br>09*|(4.29e-<br>09)|

20
|||Expenditur<br>_bk08__|e on student<br>_as03E_|Number of<br>teach<br>_T_non_|non-PNS<br>ers<br>_PNS_|Teacher a<br>ra<br>_Teache_|ttendance<br>te<br>_r_attend_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|VARIABLES||coef|se|coef|se|coef|se|
|D_accredit|Dummy, =1 if school is accredited|-1.335e+06|(1.207e+06)|0.871***|(0.268)|2.312|(2.135)|
|R_admission|Ratio of application / admission|-1.672e+06|(1.865e+06)|-0.343|(0.414)|2.797|(3.305)|
|T_enroll|Total enrollment|38,275***|(6,037)|0.00757***|(0.00134)|-0.0151|(0.0107)|
|T_PNS|Number of civil servant teachers|215,647|(179,504)|-0.170***|(0.0398)|0.213|(0.318)|
|bk05_pc08B|Dummy, =1 if school receives assistance from District or sub-district<br>education staff|-899,001|(1.201e+06)|-0.176|(0.267)|3.522*|(2.128)|
|bk05_pc08C|Dummy, =1 if school receives assistance from Private foundations/donors|-843,199|(3.343e+06)|1.179|(0.742)|-14.25**|(5.924)|
|<br>bk05_ao04G|<br>Dummy, =1 if Principal received training for involving parents and<br>community members in supporting the school|-2.383e+06|<br>(1.518e+06)|-0.119|<br>(0.337)|6.273**|<br>(2.686)|
|Dfemale|<br>Dummy, =1 if school principal is female|-1.256e+06|(1.190e+06)|-0.546**|(0.263)|2.689|(2.101)|
|age|<br>Principal’s age|-152,927|<br>(116,072)|-0.0522**|<br>(0.0256)|0.710***|<br>(0.205)|
|<br>bk09_pj03a|<br>Share of teachers receiving an oral performance evaluation from principal|-21,276|<br>(2.255e+06)|-1.070**|<br>(0.500)|1.370|<br>(3.995)|
|<br>bk09_pj03b|<br>Share of teachers receiving a written performance evaluation from principal|3.341e+06*|<br>(1.943e+06)|0.0514|<br>(0.431)|-1.043|<br>(3.440)|
|bk09_kg03xA|Share of teachers receive training from national government|-1.573e+06|(5.332e+06)|-0.405|(1.184)|16.64*|(9.447)|
|bk09_kg03xB|Share of teachers receiving training province government|5.262e+06|(3.418e+06)|-0.0174|(0.758)|-15.17**|(6.047)|
|<br>bk09_kg03xC|<br>Share of teachers receiving training from district or subdistrict Education<br>Office|-8.056e+06**|<br>(3.318e+06)|-0.109|<br>(0.736)|-1.566|<br>(5.878)|
|bk09_kg04A|Share of teachers receiving training in: Handling classroom management<br>and discipline situations|-3.902e+06|(4.124e+06)|-2.675***|(0.915)|-5.592|(7.306)|
|bk09_kg04B|<br>Share of teachers receiving training in: Planning lessons more effectively|-608,698|(4.981e+06)|-0.196|(1.105)|20.46**|(8.816)|
|bk09_kg04D|Share of teachers receiving training in: Teaching your subject matter or<br>grade level|-1.471e+06|(4.483e+06)|1.650*|(0.995)|-3.291|(7.938)|
|bk09_kg04H|<br>Share of teachers receiving training in: Planning for the allocation of BOS<br>funds|4.733e+06|(4.499e+06)|0.224|(0.999)|15.51*|(7.970)|
|||-1.952e+06|(9.688e+06)|5.305**|(2.146)|42.88**|(17.12)|
|Constant||||||||
|||383||384||384||
|Observations||||||||
|R-squared||0.627||0.346||0.287||

21
The teacher attendance rate also seems to be significantly affected by how much the district/subdistrict influences the schools. However, the results show that a district’s ―administrative influence‖ (i.e., influence on school planning and budgeting) has a positive effect, while its ―professional influence‖ (i.e., influence on textbook selection) seems to have a negative effect on teachers’ attendance rate. The school committee appears to have a significant effect on teacher attendance. We have found that schools with committees receiving teacher performance reports have significantly higher teacher attendance rates. An experienced and better educated school committee chair is also associated with better teacher attendance<sup>7</sup> .

Table 3 presents the 2<sup>nd</sup> step estimates of school outcomes<sup>8</sup> . Predicted values are used to capture the effect of school decisions and intermediate outcomes. The results show that among the school decision and intermediate outcome variables, school spending on student activities, the number of non-civil service teachers, and the teacher attendance rate all have significant effects on math scores, controlling for other school and parent characteristics. In the meantime, only the teacher attendance rate shows a significant effect on language scores.

Teacher quality and management stand out as important factors in test scores. Both the share of teachers receiving training from districts or other sources, and the share of teachers receiving performance evaluations from principals have a significant effect on test scores. One result that might be comforting is that the share of certified teachers is highly correlated with higher test scores, for both language and math. This at least shows that the on-going teacher certification process does identify good teachers.

The results also shows that whether a school is a national standard school or an international standard school does not matter in terms of learning outcomes measured by test scores, and nor does the accreditation of a school. This may indicate the weakness of one of most important aspects of the school quality assurance system in Indonesia.

> 7 One puzzling result is that schools that send school performance report to parents seem to have lower teacher attendance.  But again, ―school performance‖ is not well defined in the survey. 8 Full results of 2nd step estimates are in Annex 3.

22
# **Table 3: 2**<sup>**nd**</sup> **step estimates: School outcome**

|||Bahasa Indon<br>Score<br>|esian Score<br>_bin|Math<br>score<br>|Score<br>_mth|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|VARIABLES||coef|se|coef|se|
|D_standard2|Dummy, =1 if school is of Pilot National Standard|-2.793*|(1.674)|-0.386|(1.289)|
|R_admission|Ratio of application / admission|1.773|(1.497)|2.183*|(1.151)|
|T_enroll|Total enrollment|-0.0208**|(0.00820)|0.0240***|(0.00630)|
|bk05_kr07|Principal annual Income (Rp)|6.06e-07**|(2.56e-07)|3.61e-07*|(1.97e-07)|
|bk09_pj03b|Share of teachers receiving a written performance<br>evaluation from principal|3.028*|(1.584)|1.127|(1.218)|
|bk09_kg03xC|Share of teachers receiving training from district or<br>subdistrict Education Office|3.360|(2.682)|3.605*|(2.062)|
|bk09_kg03xD|Share of teachers receiving training from private foundation<br>|5.258*|(3.142)|5.873**|(2.423)|
|bk09_kg04E|Share of teachers receiving training in: Assessing the<br>performance of your students|1.563|(3.653)|4.918*|(2.819)|
|bk09_kr12|Share of teachers certified|6.739**|(2.884)|5.276**|(2.226)|
|exp_hat|Predicted value of school expenditure on students activities|1.91e-07|(1.16e-07)|2.35e-07***|(9.04e-08)|
|nonPNS_hat|Predicted value of non-PNS teachers|0.912|(0.616)|0.903*|(0.478)|
|T_attend_hat|Predicted value of teacher attendance|0.130*|(0.0733)|0.113**|(0.0564)|
|Dedu_parent|Dummy, =1 if parental education at least senior secondary|8.387***|(1.847)|6.258***|(1.419)|
|bk10_kr05|Parental annual income|1.57e-06***|(4.91e-07)|1.07e-07|(3.77e-07)|
|Constant||17.08*|(8.842)|4.352|(6.784)|
|Observations||377||377||
|R-squared||0.425||0.368||

23
# **V. Conclusions**

The global trend of school-based management follows the principle of decentralized decision-making, putting power in the hands of the frontline providers and parents to improve their schools, aiming at improving education beyond providing more classrooms, more teachers, and more textbooks. The idea behind decentralized decision making and management is that the frontline providers and clients know best what they want, and what goes on in schools and other public service provision facilities.

This paper examines the key aspects of the practices of school-based management currently in Indonesia, and its effect on education quality. Using a conceptual framework of an accountability system of public service delivery, this paper explores the relations among parents, school committees, schools, and government education supervisory bodies from three tenets: participation and voice; autonomy; and accountability. The paper’s empirical approach allows a close examination of how these aspects affect school decision-making on key educational inputs, which significantly affect student learning outcomes.

Using the data from a nationally representative survey of about 400 public primary schools in Indonesia, the paper finds that the level of parental participation and voice in school management is quite low in Indonesia. While the role of school committees is still limited to community relations, school facilities, and other administrative areas of schools, the school principal, together with teachers, is very much empowered to assert professional control of the school. The most important finding of this paper is that the accountability system is very weak in Indonesia’s school system, which is reflected in inadequate information flow to parents, as well as seemingly low parental awareness of holding schools accountable. The accountability arrangement of the Indonesian school system currently puts more emphasis on top-down supervision and monitoring. Even though the interactions between district or subdistrct education offices and schools are generally frequent, the lack of rewards and sanctions for good or bad performance also leaves the system weak.

The empirical work of this paper shows that although the scope of school-based management in Indonesia is limited today, it has begun to help schools make the right decisions on allocation of resources and hiring additional (non-civil servant) teachers, and 24
to create an enabling environment for learning, including increasing the teacher attendance rate. All these aspects are found to have significantly positive effects on student learning outcomes.

The results of this paper may also contribute to the rethinking of teacher management reforms in Indonesia. Hiring non-civil servant teachers by schools has been controversial as it is often perceived as inadequate spending and waste of resources given that the overall civil servant teachers are more than sufficient in numbers relative to the total number of students. In the meantime, an increasing number of non-civil service teachers are queuing to become civil service teachers, creating pressure on expanding the size of the civil service. The findings of this paper show that rather than in an ad hoc manner, schools do hire non-civil service teachers in compensation for the smaller numbers (relatively) of civil-service teachers at school. More importantly, non-civil service teachers contribute significantly to student learning. We argue that this contribution may not be because of the total number of teachers per se, as decreasing the student-pupil ratio from 20:1 (without non-civil service teachers) to 15:1 (with civil service teachers) cannot provide a convincing explanation of the improvement of learning outcomes based on a vast amount of international experience. Rather, non-civil service teachers may have very different characteristics from the current civil service teachers: they are generally younger, and many are fresh from college, and with updated knowledge. They may be also more motivated to earn ―job security‖. These hypotheses are yet to be tested.

25