Decentralized Basic Education 1: Management and Governance

Implementing School-Based

Management in Indonesia

The DBE1 Experience: 2005 – 2010 Impact Study

July 2011

This report is one of a series of special reports produced by Research Triangle Institute (RTI), Implementing Partner for the USAID-funded Improved Quality of Decentralized Basic Education (IQDBE) program in Indonesia

Implementing School-based

Management in Indonesia The DBE1 Experience 2005 – 2010

Impact Study Contract 497-M-00-05-00029-00 Prepared for USAID/Indonesia Prepared by RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Post Office Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

ii Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... vii

Ringkasan Eksekutif .................................................................................................................... xx

Chapter 1 - Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 School-based management in Indonesia ................................................................................. 2 Building on predecessor projects ............................................................................................. 6 Measuring the impact of school-based management .............................................................. 8 Goals of the study..................................................................................................................... 9 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 10

External factors affecting impact ....................................................................................... 11 Organization of the report ....................................................................................................... 11 Conclusion12

Chapter 2 – The DBE1 program to support school-based management ................................ 13 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 13 School Development Planning (RKS) .................................................................................... 14

Developing a school profile ............................................................................................... 14 Setting expectations .......................................................................................................... 15 Identifying the challenges and their causes ...................................................................... 15 Problem solving ................................................................................................................. 15 Designing programs .......................................................................................................... 15

School Committee Training .................................................................................................... 16 Leadership Training for Principals .......................................................................................... 18 School Database System (SDS) ............................................................................................ 18 Conclusion19

Chapter 3 – Basic Indicators of Impact on School Management and Governance ...................................................................................................................... 20

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 20 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 21

Study population ................................................................................................................ 21 Data collection and analysis .............................................................................................. 21

Findings 22 The number and quality of school development plans ...................................................... 22 RKS Development ............................................................................................................. 22 Financial transparency ...................................................................................................... 25 Multi-source funding .......................................................................................................... 27 The role of school committees in school-based management .......................................... 29 Participation in preparing, socializing and implementing school development plans .................................................................................................................................. 30 Role of school committee in monitoring school performance ............................................ 31 Role of school committee in promoting school transparency ............................................ 32 School committee views on the importance of broad representation ............................... 33

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 34

Chapter 4 - Implementation of School Development Plans ..................................................... 37 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 37 Part 1: RKS program implementation survey ......................................................................... 39

Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 39 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 40 RKS program implementation rate .................................................................................... 40 Reasons for non-implementation of RKS programs in the planned year .......................... 42

Part 2: Field Surveys .............................................................................................................. 43 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 43 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 45

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 iii

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 47

Chapter 5 - Funding for School Development Plans ................................................................ 49 Part 1: Community contributions to school development ....................................................... 49 Part 2: Village Development Planning Forums ...................................................................... 52

Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 53 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 55 The Village Development Planning Forum process .......................................................... 55 Number of villages which invited school committee members to Village Development Planning Forums ......................................................................................... 55 Types of programs proposed in Village Development Planning Forums .......................... 56 RKS as a source for proposed programs .......................................................................... 57 Results of school committee participation in Village Development Planning Forums ............................................................................................................................... 58

Part 3: District and provincial funding for schools .................................................................. 58 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 60

Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Principals on Project Impact ......................................................... 63 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 63 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 64

Data collection ................................................................................................................... 64 Data analysis ..................................................................................................................... 64

Findings 65 Has DBE1 had an impact? ................................................................................................ 65 What is the impact? ........................................................................................................... 66

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 70

Chapter 7 – Field Case Study Research ..................................................................................... 72 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 72 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 72

Sampling ............................................................................................................................ 73 Findings 74

Question 1: What is the impact of DBE1 at the school level? ........................................... 74 Question 2: What factors are associated with maximum impact? ..................................... 80 Question 3: What factors are associated with minimal impact? ........................................ 84 Question 4: Are there any negative impacts of DBE? ....................................................... 87 Question 5: Are there any unintended impacts of DBE1? ................................................. 89 Before and after DBE1 ...................................................................................................... 90

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 92

Chapter 8 – The Impact of Dissemination .................................................................................. 94 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 94

The DBE1 transition strategy ............................................................................................. 94 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 97

Sampling ............................................................................................................................ 98 Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 99 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................ 99

Findings 100 Part 1: Dissemination in numbers ................................................................................... 100 Part 2: Dissemination program quality; 2008 survey ....................................................... 104 Part 3: Dissemination program impact; 2010 survey ...................................................... 109 Part 4: Impact in ‘comparison schools’ ............................................................................ 117 School development planning ......................................................................................... 120

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 123

Chapter 9 – Summary of Key Findings and Analysis ............................................................. 129 What is the impact of DBE1 at the school level? ................................................................. 130 What factors are associated with maximum and with minimum impact? ............................. 133 The program is explicitly based on government policy ........................................................ 135 Stakeholder ownership is strong .......................................................................................... 135 Institutional and human capacity is built ............................................................................... 136 Technical assistance rather than funding is provided and the program is

manageable and affordable for local partners .................................................... 138

iv Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

Scope and geographic focus is limited ................................................................................. 140 A locally-based implementation methodology, including on-site mentoring, is

adopted ............................................................................................................... 141 A complete and integrated school-based management program is provided ...................... 142 Commitment to reform is built at province and district level ................................................. 144 Are there any unintended impacts; positive or negative? .................................................... 146 What can DBE1 and partners do to increase the impact and sustainability of

outcomes during the remainder of the project? .................................................. 147 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 150

Chapter 10 - Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 151

Appendix 1: List of References ................................................................................................. 153

Appendix 2: Community Contribution to School Development by district (rupiah) .............................................................................................................. 154

Appendix 3: Dissemination Data .............................................................................................. 156

Appendix 4: Target Districts ..................................................................................................... 158

Appendix 5: Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary ............................................................ 159

List of Tables Table 3.1: Number & location of Cohort 1 elementary schools ............................................... 21 Table 4.1: Sample of Cohort 1 schools surveyed by the DBE1 team ..................................... 44 Table 4.2: Sample of Cohort 2 schools surveyed by national GoI team ................................. 45 Table 5.1: Community contributions to DBE1 target schools (rupiah) .................................... 51 Table 5.2: Sample of villages per province ............................................................................. 54 Table 5.3: Number of assisted villages which conducted Village Development Planning

Forums ..................................................................................................................... 55 Table 5.4: Number of villages which invited school committees ............................................. 56 Table 5.5: Types of programs proposed in Village Development Planning Forums (total 106

villages) .................................................................................................................... 57 Table 5.6: Number of proposed programs derived from school development plans (106

villages) .................................................................................................................... 58 Table 6.1: DBE1 Impact – Perceptions of Cohort 1 Principals ................................................ 67 Table 7.1: What is the Impact of DBE at the School Level? ................................................... 75 Table 7.2: What is the Evidence for Accountability at the School Level? ............................... 79 Table 7.3: Factors Associated with Maximum Impact ............................................................. 83 Table 7.4: Factors Associated with Minimal Impact ................................................................ 87 Table 7.5: Negative Impacts of DBE ....................................................................................... 88 Table 7.6: Unintended Impacts of DBE ................................................................................... 90 Table 7.7: Before and After DBE1 – The Case of Magersari, Mojokerto, East Java .............. 91 Table 8.1 Number of schools implementing DBE1 programs under dissemination (at June

2010) ...................................................................................................................... 100 Table 8.2: Summary of Dissemination Effort to September 2009 ......................................... 101 Table 8.3: Summary of DBE1 Dissemination Programs to end of June 2010 (Program

Realization) ............................................................................................................ 102 Table 8.4: Average Costs for Dissemination per School (rupiah) ......................................... 103 Table 8.5: Extent of RKS completion in sample dissemination schools (2008) .................... 106 Table 8.6: Stakeholders involved in RKS development in dissemination schools (number of

schools, 2008) ........................................................................................................ 109 Table 8.7 Type of dissemination program implemented (2010) ............................................ 112 Table 8.8 Extent of RKS completion in sample dissemination schools (2010) ..................... 113 Table 8.9: RKS Program Implementation (2010) .................................................................. 113 Table 8.10: Type of dissemination program implemented in comparison schools (2010) .... 119 Table 8.11: Extent of RKS completion in comparison schools (2010) .................................. 120

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 v

Table 8.12: The relationship between funding source and RKS quality .............................. 123 Table 9.1: Unit Cost Summary for DBE1 school-based management training program (per

school excluding project overheads) ..................................................................... 140

List of Figures Figure 1.1: DBE1 Target Locations ........................................................................................... 2 Figure 3.1: Percentage of schools with school development plans (RKS) that meet threshold

criteria (total 526) ..................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.2: Percentage of schools disseminating their financial report in more than two

venues (total 526) .................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3.3: Percentage of schools with plans which identify more than three sources of

funding (total 526) .................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3.4: Percentage of school committee members active in RKS preparation and

implementation (total 526) ....................................................................................... 30 Figure 3.5: Frequency of monitoring visits per person in a six month period (total 526) ........ 31 Figure 3.6: Percentage of school committees supporting school transparency (total 526) .... 32 Figure 3.7: Changes in opinion of school committee members regarding groups that should

be represented on the school committee (total 526) ............................................... 33 Figure 4.1: RKS program implementation: 2006/07 and 2007/08 (total number of schools:

526) .......................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 4.2: Reasons given for schools not implementing RKS programs in the planned year

(total number of schools: 526) ................................................................................. 43 Figure 6.1 ................................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 8.1: Transition Strategy ................................................................................................ 95 Figure 8.2: DBE1 Impact of Dissemination Program; Principals’ Perceptions (Sample 80

schools) .................................................................................................................. 111 Figure 8.3: Percentage of comparison schools with good quality School Development Plans

(sample 105) ......................................................................................................... 118 Figure 8.4: DBE 1 Impact on non-target schools; principals’ perceptions (Sample 69 schools)

............................................................................................................................... 119

vi Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 vii

Executive Summary

This special report1 describes a project which aimed to improve the

management and governance of basic education in Indonesia. Indonesia has

the fourth largest education system in the world, and for the past decade the

education sector has been decentralized. In this context, school-based

management is an essential element in improving the quality of education in

this country. A mixed-method, multi-site assessment found that the project had

a positive impact on implementing school based management in both public

schools and private schools including madrasah. The following factors were

found to be associated with this impact: (i) the program was firmly and

explicitly based on government policy; (ii) technical assistance rather than

funding was provided; the program was manageable and affordable for local

partners; (iii) the project worked with and strengthened local systems and

institutions; commitment was built at provincial and district level; (iv) the

program was school-based and involved all members of the school

community: the principal, teachers, staff, parents and community members;

(v) training was provided on-site in school clusters; training was ongoing and

included mentoring in schools to support implementation; one-off training

events rarely result in successful reform.

Introduction

School-based management is ‗…the systematic decentralization to the school level of

authority and responsibility to make decisions on significant matters related to school

operations within a centrally determined framework of goals, policies, curriculum,

standards, and accountability.‘ (Caldwell 2005, p.1). The approach is also sometimes

referred to with the terms ‗self managing school‘, ‗site-based management‘, ‗school

autonomy‘ or ‗local management‘.

There are at least two reasons for implementing school-based management: (1)

school-based management leads to better management and governance, (2) school-

based management can create the enabling conditions for improved teaching and

learning.

The Government of Indonesia is transforming the education sector from a centralized

system to one supporting school-based management. The DBE1 experience

demonstrates that school-based management can be implemented in Indonesian

elementary schools and that this results in better management and governance.

Assessment of the direct learning benefits of school-based management is beyond the

scope of this study. The study does show, however, that strategic planning, improved

1 The information in this paper is abstracted from a DBE1 study: ―Implementing School-Based Management in Indonesia : The DBE1 Experience 2005-2010‖; July 2010. The full study is available at USAID Development

Experience Clearinghouse and http://www.dbe-usaid.org

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdacq711.pdfhttp://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdacq711.pdf

viii Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

financial management and increased community participation can be achieved. This is

intrinsically worthwhile, especially in the context of Indonesia, a country which is

pursuing a broad program of democratization. Further, the factors associated with

successful implementation of DBE1 are likely to be instructive for similar efforts in

other countries undertaking decentralization of school management.

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 ix

School-based management

School-based management (SBM) has been implemented in many countries. While it

is difficult to find evidence directly linking school-based management to

improvements in the quality of education or in learning outcomes for children

(Caldwell 1998, 2005), we can expect, based on the results of international research,

that school-based management can help create the enabling conditions for

improvements in teaching and learning (Ainley and McKenzie 2000, Fullan and

Watson 2000, Caldwell 2005, Di Gropello 2006, Mundial 2006, Umansky and Vegas

2007, Crouch and Winkler 2008, Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009). A World Bank led

school-based management impact evaluation2 ―. . . found that SBM changed the

dynamics in the school because of changes in the behavior of parents (who became

more involved) and teachers who changed their actions. These changes led to positive

impacts on repetition rates, failure rates, and learning outcomes. . .‖3

Improved leadership, administration, planning and budgeting, along with

transparency, accountability and improved parental and community participation,

create the conditions for improved and more relevant learning and teaching. The

Indonesian experience suggests that combining programs to improve management and

governance with programs to improve learning and teaching creates an enthusiasm for

change which can transform schools (Bengoteku and Heyward 2007).

Recent research also suggests that, given a long time frame, school-based

management can impact on student learning outcomes (Borman et al. 2003, Gertler et

al. 2007, Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009). Short term projects can also impact on learning

outcomes ‗…but only if very strongly coupled with exemplary pedagogics; that is, if

one demonstrates how the improved management is used for improved pedagogy

using pretty specific improved pedagogy‘ (Crouch 2010, original emphasis). Recent

analysis of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test results

conducted in 2003 and 2006 shows that school autonomy in budgeting and staffing

were both associated with improved learning outcomes. The results also suggest that

increased choice, accountability and school autonomy benefit students from both low

and high socioeconomic backgrounds (Caldwell and Harris 2008).

The link between school-based management and improved learning outcomes has

thus been established but is difficult to prove in the short term, especially in the

absence of good testing instruments and procedures, as is the case in Indonesia

(Cannon and Arlianti 2009). Notwithstanding this relatively weak link, the purpose

and value of school-based management extend beyond improving learning

outcomes. Countries like Indonesia pursue decentralization and localized school

autonomy for many reasons, some of the most significant having to do with broad

political and social development concerns. Schools are important places for

2 World Bank (2008). ―What Do We Know about School Based Management?‖ World Bank. Washington, DC.

3 World Bank (2010) ―Making BOS Effective Under Decentralization,‖ World Bank Policy Brief. December 2010.

x Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

community development and learning about localized collective action (Crouch

2010). Moreover, effective and efficient school management is also a worthwhile goal

in its own right. Indicators of improved planning, transparency and participation are

therefore important for measuring impact (Di Gropello 2006).

The study reported here evaluates the effectiveness of DBE1 school-based

management tools and methods by assessing various aspects of project performance

and impact of the interventions.

The Decentralized Basic Education project (DBE1)

The USAID-funded Decentralized Basic Education I project (DBE1) was

implemented in Indonesia by RTI International between 2005 and 2011. Commencing

in the late 1990s, the Indonesian Government has progressively adopted a range of

policies giving schools increased autonomy in the context of regional autonomy.

DBE1 was among the first donor-funded projects to work in this field after the

introduction of these policies, making the project especially significant. For example,

before the introduction of central per-capita school funding in 2005 school planning

lacked substance, as schools had such inconsequential budgets. With the new policy

school budgets increased dramatically and planning thus became much more

important, along with the leadership of the principal and the role of the school

committee in governance and financial management.

DBE1 worked in partnership with districts and local stakeholders to improve the

management and governance of basic education in 50 districts, covering about 10% of

the entire population of approximately 240 million. Two clusters of elementary

schools were jointly selected in each district. Where Islamic schools, known as

madrasah, were not already integrated into the existing cluster system, at least one

was included in each cluster. Four junior secondary schools were also selected,

making a total of 1,310 target schools. The schools were introduced in the project in

two phases, 2006 and 2007, (referred to as Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively) with about

650 schools in each phase.

The project trained local government school supervisors to facilitate cluster-based

training and provide in-school mentoring. Working with these facilitators, DBE1

assisted schools to prepare and implement four-year school development plans which:

(1) were focused on quality improvement, (2) were based on needs identified through

data collected and analyzed in a school profile, (3) reflected the aspirations and

priorities of stakeholders, (4) covered all main aspects of the school program, (5) were

multi-resourced, (6) were directly linked to annual school work plans and budgets,

and (7) were effectively implemented and monitored by the school committee and

stakeholders. Planning based on actual data was a novelty for most schools.

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xi

Each school formed a working group, comprised of the principal, a teacher, and

representatives of the community and school committee, to prepare the plans. These

working groups attended a series of training activities at cluster level followed up by

in-school mentoring provided by the facilitators. To assist in collecting and analyzing

data for these plans, the project developed and introduced a school database system.

Although many schools, especially in rural areas, did not at the time have a computer,

the Ministry of Education plans for all schools to own a computer by 2012.

Training was provided to principals and local education leaders to improve their

leadership skills, and especially to encourage a more open, transparent and

participatory approach to school leadership. Substantial training was also provided to

strengthen the role of school committees in a range of areas. In total, each school

received approximately 23 days training and 23 mentoring visits over a three year

period. This intensive assistance was limited to the 24 selected schools in each

district.

Assessing Impact of DBE1 SBM Interventions

Impact is generally defined as the difference in an indicator of interest with and

without the intervention (White 2009). For the purposes of this study, impact is

defined as changes attributable to the DBE1 program of interventions. In order to

determine impact, the ‗counterfactual‘ value must be determined. In other words,

what would the schools be like without DBE1 interventions?

In a perfect world the counterfactual would be determined by establishing a control

group which did not receive the interventions. However, in the real world of

education development this is neither practical nor ethical. Establishing a control

group would require: (1) identifying a group of schools sufficiently similar on a range

of variables, which would typically mean geographically close, and (2) quarantining

this group from any influence or ‗contamination‘ from the project‘s activities. This

second requirement runs counter to the aims of the project which encouraged

dissemination of outcomes as widely as possible. This issue is addressed in the

methodology discussed below.

The study reported here assessed the effectiveness of DBE1 school-based

management interventions by assessing their impact in terms of (1) changes in

management and governance in project target schools and communities, and (2) the

extent to which the interventions have been taken up and replicated beyond the scope

of the project.

Methodology

Baseline data were collected from all target schools prior to project interventions and

regularly over five years to measure performance against the baseline. In the absence

of a control group, this baseline acts as the counterfactual; if the project had no effect

xii Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

on practices, we assume that baseline values would persist throughout the life of the

project. While this approach provides good evidence of project performance, impact

can never be proven in the way that it can be in a controlled experiment. It is always

possible that other factors caused the changes observed in schools. However, using a

mixed-method approach to track change over time and triangulate the findings we can

demonstrate impact ‗beyond reasonable doubt‘ (Mayne 1999).4

Between 2008 and 2010 a comprehensive series of studies was conducted with the

aim of better assessing the impact of DBE1 programs on schools and to enable a more

rich and compelling story about the program and its impacts on schools and

communities to be told. The result was a comprehensive mixed-method study. The

tradition of mixed-methods research has developed over the past twenty years as an

alternative to both the quantitative and qualitative research traditions. Mixed-method

research uses whatever methodological tools necessary to answer particular research

questions within a particular set of implementation constraints (Teddlie and

Tashakkori, 2009).

The following is a description of the various data gathering methods and instruments

used to assess the impact of DBE1 school-based management interventions.

Routine project monitoring and analysis showing achievement against baseline data on 10 (out of 22) performance indicators.

A series of studies exploring the extent to which school development plans were actually implemented in 500 target schools.

First, two annual quantitative surveys of all target schools were conducted in 2009 and 2010.

Second, two qualitative field surveys were conducted to test the validity of the quantitative data; one was carried out by the project team in a sample of 32 schools and the other was conducted independently by national counterparts from the Ministry of National Education and the Ministry of Religious Affairs in a sample of 46 schools.

Three studies of school funding, which investigated, respectively:

the level of community support for local schools over three years following commencement of DBE1 interventions;

outcomes of a program to help school committees obtain funding from village budgets through Village Development Planning Forums (musrenbangdes; and

the impact of school unit cost analysis on district and provincial funding for schools.

An interview survey of the principals of all target schools on their perceptions of the project’s impact in their schools.

An in-depth, qualitative participant observation study conducted in

4 See Heyward, Cannon, and Sarjono (in press) Implementing school-based management in Indonesia; impact and

lessons learned, Journal of Development Effectiveness, for a more detailed explanation of the multi-method

approach for this study including approaches to triangulation and addressing potential researcher bias. The article

describes the challenges in achieving a ‗gold standard‘ impact evaluation in the field. See also Mayne (1999) for

an account of this kind of ‗contribution analysis‘ illustrated in a development project context by Kotvojs and

Shrimpton (2007).

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xiii

eight school clusters located in two provinces over a one month period.

A series of studies to document the extent and quality of DBE1 school-based management programs replicated in non-target schools with funding from local government and other agencies. The studies are as follows:

Documentation of the extent of dissemination; specifically, the number of schools replicating DBE1 programs and amount and sources of counterpart budgets spent. Data were gathered by reviewing counterpart budgets and funding records and verification through field visits;

Qualitative field surveys in a sample of 92 schools conducted by project teams in 2008 followed by a second assessment in the same schools in 2010 to determine sustainability and impact of the disseminated interventions, and

Monitoring the extent, nature and quality of dissemination of DBE1 school-based management programs in 105 non-project target schools which neighboured project target schools, over the five years of the project.

In addition, an independent mid-term review of DBE1 (The Mitchell Group 2008) provided another reference and triangulation point.

Findings

Taken together these studies constitute a comprehensive multi-method, multi-site

study. The findings show consistently that the DBE1 interventions have had a positive

impact on Indonesian schools in terms of better planning, community participation,

and transparency and an impact on the system as a whole in terms of the take up of

the interventions by others.

Project Target Schools

As illustrated in Figure 1, below, at the time of the baseline survey, only 2% of

project schools had good quality school development plans, based on a set of 32

agreed criteria. After receiving DBE1 interventions the figure had risen to 96%. Field

studies showed that, of the 7,603 programs listed in these plans for the first year, 74%

were implemented by schools and their communities. In the second year, 79% of

plans were implemented. This resulted in targeted professional learning programs for

teachers, improvements to the learning environments in many schools and better

teaching resources, such as the addition of computers, texts and teaching aids. While

the study cannot show that this leads to improved learning outcomes, we can

reasonably conclude that it helps create the conditions for improved learning

outcomes.

xiv Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

Figure 1: Performance against the baseline (Cohort 1: 526 schools)

Figure 1, above, also shows improvements on indicators of transparency and

community participation. Prior to DBE1 it was rare for schools to disseminate their

financial reports in more than two venues. At the baseline only 16% did so, with over

50% reporting to their communities in only one venue or not at all. After interventions

61% of schools disseminated their financial reports in three or more forums. This

includes posting the reports on school notice boards and reporting at public events and

annual parent meetings.

The role of school committees in promoting this increase in school transparency was

important. An increasing number of school committees requested that their school

publish a financial report to the public, post it on the school notice board or to send it

directly to the parents. The figure rose from 50% at baseline to 88% after

interventions.

The role of school committees in school planning and budgeting also increased

markedly. While only 13% of school committees participated in the planning and

budgeting process at the time of the baseline, the figure rose to 84% after

interventions. Local communities subsequently contributed over Rp25 billion

(approximately $2.6 million) as either cash or non-cash support for schools to

implement their development plans. This is an average of $2,446 contributed to each

school, a significant sum for the mostly poor communities. It seems clear that this

contribution was a result of involving school communities in the preparation of school

development plans. Where communities were not involved in early efforts by local

governments to disseminate the program, no such contributions were forthcoming.

A further Rp1.1 billion ($120,000) was allocated from village budgets for school

development programs in the 106 villages studied (about $1,132 per village or $283

per school). This is a new source of funding for Indonesian schools. In addition, as a

result of DBE1 school unit cost analysis in 49 districts, allocations to schools from

regional budgets were increased by over Rp1 trillion (over $100 million). Once again,

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xv

the data do not show improvements in learning outcomes. This would be beyond the

scope of the study. However, enhanced community participation and increased

funding can help create the necessary conditions.

Some 99% of principals in target schools reported that they believe DBE1 had a

positive impact on their school. Many gave detailed accounts and concrete examples

of impact. The impact most frequently mentioned was on school planning, followed

by management, leadership and administration. Qualitative case studies found that

DBE1 is having ‗…a strong, broad and deep impact on schools, school committees,

parents, teachers and students. The evidence found for transparent, participatory and

responsive management practices was especially strong‘ (Decentralized Basic

Education I, 2010). Whether or not these changes result in improved learning

outcomes is unclear. What is clear is that DBE1 interventions have improved the

management and governance of target schools.

Dissemination by local partners

The aim of the USAID-funded DBE1 project was to improve capacity and achieve

significant school reforms which could be disseminated to other schools with

independent funding. Given the investment in interventions in target schools, it would

be disappointing indeed if there were no discernable impact. In this sense, the real test

of the DBE1 approach to school-based management is the extent to which it was

adopted by other non-funded schools.

We define dissemination as the ‗take-up‘, or adoption/adaption of project

interventions by other parties and implemented using non-project funds. The take-up

has been impressive. For every one target school in which the program was fully

funded by DBE1, another twelve schools have now implemented aspects of the

program with independent funding. As of March 2011, good practices developed

under the project had been implemented in over 15,214 schools in 74 districts with

funding from local government, the Ministry of Religious Affairs, private foundations

and the schools themselves. This is in addition to the 1,310 target schools fully funded

by the project. The most common focus of these programs was the DBE1 school

development planning methodology (see Figure 2, below).

xvi Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

Figure 2: Types of DBE1 school-based management programs disseminated

Although a baseline could not be conducted for dissemination schools (because they

were not identified until after they had implemented the DBE1 program) the survey

teams either reviewed previous documents or interviewed school personnel and

determined that few if any of the schools had previously prepared plans that met

either government guidelines or DBE1 criteria. Studies conducted in 2008 and 2010

found that most dissemination schools sampled had completed preparation of good

quality plans that complied with government standards. Furthermore, 70% of planned

programs were being implemented, contributing to better school management and

governance plus school improvement. Some 90% of principals surveyed from the

dissemination schools believe that the program has had a positive impact on their

school and gave concrete examples of that impact.

The quality of dissemination programs, although varied, was found to be satisfactory.

Moreover, the quality of the implementation process and outcomes improved between

2008 when the first survey was conducted and 2010 when the second two surveys

were conducted. While school development planning remained the main focus of

dissemination, as illustrated in Figure 2, above, more schools were implementing

more varied DBE1 school-based management programs, making the process more

comprehensive. More schools received mentoring as follow-up to class-based

training. The participation of school committees also increased.

In summary, the studies show that DBE1 school-based management interventions are

improving school-based management in Indonesia and that the project‘s interventions

can be implemented without further project support. Project interventions have

resulted in better management and governance in schools where they have been

implemented. We know that many principals are becoming more open, transparent

and participative in their management approach, school committees are becoming

more active, and schools have prepared and are implementing school development

plans based on comprehensive data analysis and involving a range of stakeholders. In

short, project interventions are instrumental in implementing school-based

management in Indonesia.

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xvii

Figure 3: Number of schools disseminating DBE1 programs based on funding source as at 30 March 2011

Figure 3, above, highlights both the impressive level of take-up of DBE1 school-

based management programs by districts and schools and the pronounced differences

between provinces. Analysis of these differences revealed an interesting set of success

factors, discussed in the following section.

Factors associated with successful implementation

Several factors were identified by stakeholders, implementers and beneficiaries as

associated with the impacts described above. This, along with a comparison of results

(1) between different regions, (2) between different groups of dissemination schools,

(3) between dissemination schools and target schools where implementation was fully

funded by the project, and (4) between target schools and neighboring schools, reveals

a set of factors that are associated with the successful implementation of project

interventions.

The program was firmly and explicitly based on government policy. Indonesia‘s

policy on school-based management is generally regarded as well-founded (World

Bank 2004). The challenge for Indonesia is to implement the policy across its vast and

diverse school system. DBE1 worked with national counterparts from the Ministry of

National Education and the Ministry of Religious Affairs, developing and piloting

methodologies to support the implementation of these policies. In some cases these

methodologies were revised and updated in response to changes in national policy

during the implementation period. In the view of key stakeholders, government

counterparts, beneficiaries and DBE1 personnel, one of the most crucial aspects of the

project‘s approach was to consistently and explicitly align methodologies to the latest

government regulations and policy at both national and district level (DBE1 2007,

2009). This approach gave the project a mandate and enabled it to successfully

xviii Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

translate established international good practice into the current Indonesian context.

The positive response of schools, and the take up by districts and related agencies,

was found to be in large part due to the explicit alignment of these methodologies

with current regulations as well as with established good practice.

Technical assistance rather than funding was provided. The program was

manageable and affordable for local partners. The study found that the

methodologies for school development planning and other aspects of the school-based

management program were generally within the financial reach of local government

and schools, and can be implemented by local education authorities and other

agencies. The cost of implementing DBE1‘s full school-based management program

is around Rp8.5 million ($900) per school. Working within the cluster system, a

school can fund the complete DBE1 school-based management program, without

reducing quality, over a period of three to four years at $200 - $300 per year. This is

affordable within current school funding arrangements.

The project worked with and strengthened local systems and institutions. Commitment

was built at provincial and district level. In cases where districts committed to the full

implementation of school-based management programs (as opposed to just one

component, typically school development planning) the impact was profound. In these

districts schools produced better quality plans, support for implementation was

stronger, and impact extended to greater numbers of schools. When institutionalized

through changes in government policy as happened, for example, in Boyolali District,

dissemination is resulting in a broad impact reaching all schools in a district or

province. As with other demand-driven development projects DBE1 was a

partnership. The two key partners, local government and the project implementation

team, shared responsibility for achieving agreed objectives. Results were not even.

Comparisons in outcomes between regions suggest that internal and external factors,

and the interplay between the two, are associated with successful implementation. The

most significant element in this partnership seems to be the level of commitment of

the district or province and the capacity of the implementation team to leverage and

build that commitment.

The program was school-based and involved members of the whole school

community: the principal, teachers, staff, parents and community members. As

described above, the percentage of schools which actively involved community

members in the preparation of development plans in target schools rose from 13% at

baseline to over 80% after DBE1 interventions. The study of dissemination schools

found that where the community was not involved results can be disappointing. In

2008 no contributions were forthcoming from the community in the schools surveyed

in contrast to the great community support achieved in the project target schools. The

2010 studies found that community participation was associated with improved rates

of completion of school planning, better quality plans and improved rates of program

implementation.

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xix

Training was provided on-site in school clusters. Training was ongoing and included

mentoring in schools to support implementation; one-off training events rarely result

in successful reform. Compared those which followed the cluster model, districts

which disseminated the program widely and did not use the cluster-based approach

achieved disappointing results. The use of mass workshops to ‗socialize‘ a new policy

or practice is a common practice in Indonesia and a part of the bureaucratic culture,

however the study found that this approach did not result in concrete outcomes in

schools. The program in Boyolali District, Central Java, for example, was conducted

in clusters. All schools applied most of the DBE1 phases and demonstrated a 100%

success rate in completing preparation of plans. In contrast, the schools in neighboring

Klaten District only conducted one phase, socialization, and the success rate was nil.

Implications for policy and research

This multi-method, multi-site study demonstrated that school-based management can

be successfully implemented in Indonesia and that this improves the management and

governance of schools. Further, the school-based management interventions

developed, tested and implemented through the USAID-funded Decentralized Basic

Education Project significantly enhance good practices. A number of important

success factors have been identified.

There are many more lessons to learn; the lack of longitudinal studies to determine the

long-term impacts of projects such as DBE1 in Indonesia and to identify factors

associated with sustainability should be addressed. The need for a stronger,

independent body of research on which to base program design and to help ensure that

development efforts are well-directed is clear.

Meanwhile, the findings of this study and the lessons of DBE1 are relevant to those

involved in the international effort to support the Indonesian government and people

to improve basic education for Indonesia‘s children. They are also relevant in the

broader effort to develop basic education and improve the management and

governance of schools worldwide. These lessons reinforce many findings of research

into school reform conducted in Indonesia and elsewhere (Barber and Mourshed

2007, Cannon and Arlianti 2008, Fullan 2001, Fullan 2007). This study adds to the

body of research by identifying factors associated with successful implementation in

the current Indonesian context.

xx Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

Ringkasan Eksekutif

Laporan Khusus5 ini menggambarkan berbagai kegiatan DBE1 yang

bertujuan untuk meningkatkan manajemen dan tata layanan pendidikan dasar

di Indonesia. Sistem pendidikan di Indonesia menduduki peringkat ke empat

terbesar di dunia dan dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir ini pengelolaan sistem

pendidikan tersebut diubah dari pengelolaan secara sentralisasi menjadi

desentralisasi. Dalam hubungan tersebut, manajemen berbasis sekolah adalah

bagian penting dalam mendukung upaya peningkatan mutu pendidikan di

Indonesia. Penilaian yang dilakukan di berbagai lokasi dan menggunakan

beberapa metodologi menemukan bahwa program ini memiliki dampak positif

dalam pelaksanaan manajemen berbasis sekolah di sekolah negeri maupun

swasta termasuk madrasah. Faktor-faktor yang berhubungan dengan dampak

positif tersebut adalah: (i) program DBE1 berdasarkan kebijakan pemerintah

dan hal ini dinyatakan secara jelas; (ii) memberikan pendampingan teknis,

bukan uang; program DBE1 dapat dilakukan dan dibiayai sendiri oleh mitra

setempat; (iii) DBE1 bekerjasama dengan dan berupaya untuk menguatkan

sistem dan lembaga setempat yang telah ada; komitmen pemangku

kepentingan dan pihak terkait dibangun di tingkat provinsi dan

kabupaten/kota; (iv) kegiatan-kegiatan yang ada berbasis sekolah dan

mengikutsertakan berbagai pihak: kepala sekolah, guru, staf, orang tua

murid, dan anggota masyarakat; (v) pelatihan dilakukan langsung di gugus

sekolah; pelatihan dilakukan tidak hanya satu kali dan termasuk

pendampingan di sekolah untuk mendukung pelaksanaan; pelatihan yang

hanya dilakukan satu kali saja biasanya tidak menghasilkan perubahan yang

baik atau dianggap sukses.

5 Laporan Khusus ini diambil dari penelitian DBE1 yang berjudul: ―Melaksanakan Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah

di Indonesia: Pengalaman-pengalaman DBE1 2005-2010‖; Juli 2010. Penelitian ini tersedia di USAID

Development Experience Clearinghouse atau dapat diunduh di http://www.dbe-usaid.org

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xxi

Pengantar

Manajemen berbasis sekolah adalah ‗… desentralisasi sistematis yang dilakukan

hingga tingkat sekolah dimana kewenangan dan kewajiban dalam membuat keputusan

pada hal-hal yang penting terkait pelaksanaan sekolah dilakukan dalam kerangka

kebijakan, kurikulum, standar, dan akuntabilitas yang telah ditentukan secara sentral

sebelumnya (Caldwell 2005, hal.1). Pendekatan ini terkadang juga disebut sebagai

―sekolah yang mengelola sendiri,‖ ―manajemen berbasis-lokasi,‖ ―otonomi sekolah,‖

atau ―manajemen lokal‖.

Paling tidak ada dua alasan untuk melaksanakan manajemen berbasis sekolah: (1)

manajemen berbasis sekolah mendorong perbaikan dalam bidang manajemen dan tata

layanan, (2) manajemen berbasis sekolah dapat menciptakan kondisi-kondisi yang

mendukung peningkatan kegiatan belajar dan mengajar.

Pemerintah Republik Indonesia saat ini sedang mengubah sistem pendidikan dari

sistem yang tersentralisasi menjadi sistem yang mendukung manajemen berbasis

sekolah. Pengalaman-pengalaman DBE1 menunjukkan bahwa manajemen berbasis

sekolah dapat dilaksanakan di sekolah dasar di Indonesia dan menghasilkan

manajemen dan tata layanan yang lebih baik. Namun demikian, penelitian ini tidak

mencakup manfaat dari manajemen berbasis sekolah terhadap mutu kegiatan

pembelajaran. Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa dengan manajemen berbasis

sekolah, sekolah dapat memiliki rencana sekolah yang strategis, manajemen keuangan

yang lebih baik, dan partisipasi masyarakat yang lebih tinggi. Pada dasarnya hal ini

merupakan masukan yang sangat baik terlebih dalam hubungannya dengan upaya

Indonesia untuk mengembangkan demokrasi secara umum. Selain itu, faktor-faktor

yang berhubungan dengan suksesnya pelaksanaan program DBE1 dapat dijadikan

masukan untuk mendukung negara-negara lain yang juga sedang berupaya

mendesentralisasi manajemen pendidikannya.

xxii Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah

Manajemen berbasis sekolah telah dilakukan di banyak negara. Walaupun sulit untuk

mendapatkan bukti yang menghubungkan secara langsung manajemen berbasis

sekolah dengan peningkatan mutu pendidikan atau hasil pembelajaran untuk siswa

(Caldwell 1998, 2005), hasil-hasil riset internasional menunjukkan manajemen

berbasis sekolah dapat membantu menciptakan berbagai kondisi mendukung

perbaikan dalam pembelajaran (Ainley dan McKenzie 2000, Fullan dan Watson 2000,

Caldwell 2005, Di Gropello 2006, Mundial 2006, Umansky dan Vegas 2007, Crouch

dan Winkler 2008, Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009). Evaluasi dampak dalam manajemen

berbasis sekolah yang dipandu oleh Bank Dunia6 ―… menemukan bahwa MBS

merubah dinamika sekolah karena adanya perubahan tingkah laku orang tua murid

(yang menjadi lebih terlibat dalam kegiatan sekolah) dan guru yang memperbaiki

tindakan mereka. Perubahan-perubahan ini membawa perubahan yang positif dalam

mengurangi jumlah siswa yang mengulang kelas, yang drop-out, dan meningkatkan

hasil pembelajaran…‖ 7

Pada saat adanya kepemimpinan, administrasi, perencanaan dan keuangan yang lebih

baik di sekolah, bersama-sama dengan peningkatan dalam transparansi, akuntabilitas,

dan partisipasi orangtua murid dan masyarakat, hal-hal ini mendukung terciptanya

kondisi yang lebih baik dan relevan untuk kegiatan belajar mengajar. Pengalaman di

Indonesia menyarankan bahwa dengan menggabungkan upaya meningkatkan

manajemen dan tata layanan dengan upaya meningkatkan mutu belajar mengajar,

pihak terkait di sekolah menjadi merasa antusias dan hal ini bisa menjadi awal upaya

perbaikan sekolah (Bengoteku dan Heyward 2007).

Penelitian baru-baru ini juga menyarankan bahwa, dengan periode waktu yang cukup

panjang, manajemen berbasis sekolah dapat mempengaruhi hasil pembelajaran siswa

(Borman et al. 2003, Gertler et al. 2007, Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009). Proyek jangka

pendek juga dapat memberikan dampak dalam hasil kegiatan belajar mengajar ―…

namun hanya jika dilakukan bersamaan secara betul-betul dengan hal-hal pedagogi

yang baik; yaitu jika ada bukti bagaimana manajemen yang lebih baik digunakan

untuk meningkatkan pedagogi dengan menggunakan hal-hal terkait pedagogi yang

khusus dan lebih baik‖ (Crouch 2010, original emphasis.) Analisis baru-baru ini dari

hasil testing Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) yang dilakukan

pada tahun 2003 dan 2006 menunjukkan bahwa otonomi sekolah dalam perencanaan

dan urusan staf juga terkait dengan hasil pembelajaran yang lebih baik. Hasil dari

testing ini juga menyarankan bahwa adanya pilihan yang lebih banyak, akuntabilitas,

dan otonomi sekolah memberikan manfaat untuk siswa yang berasal dari latar

belakang sosial ekonomi yang rendah maupun tinggi (Caldwell dan Harris 2008).

Hubungan antara manajemen berbasis sekolah dan hasil pembelajaran yang lebih baik

telah berlangsung namun sulit untuk dibuktikan dalam jangka waktu pendek terutama

6 World Bank (2008). ―What Do We Know about School Based Management?‖ World Bank. Washington, DC. 7 World Bank (2010) ―Making BOS Effective Under Decentralization,‖ World Bank Policy Brief. December 2010.

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xxiii

jika tidak ada instrumen dan prosedur testing yang baik seperti yang terjadi di

Indonesia (Cannon dan Arlianti 2009). Meskipun tidak ada pembuktikan yang cukup

kuat, cakupan dan nilai dari manajemen berbasis sekolah tidak hanya terfokus kepada

peningkatkan hasil pembelajaran semata. Negara-negara seperti Indonesia memiliki

berbagai alasan untuk melakukan desentralisasi dan mendukung otonomi lokal

sekolah. Salah satu alasan itu terkait dengan pengembangan hal-hal politik dan sosial.

Sekolah merupakan tempat yang penting dalam pengembangan dan pembelajaran

masyarakat dimana mereka bisa melakukan kegiatan bersama-sama dengan

lingkungannya (Crouch 2010). Selain itu, manajemen sekolah yang efektif dan efisien

juga merupakan tujuan yang baik untuk dicapai oleh pihak terkait. Indikator untuk

perencanaan yang lebih baik, transparansi, dan partisipasi merupakan hal penting

dalam mengukur dampak (Di Gropello 2006).

Penelitian yang dilaporkan disini mengevaluasi tingkat efektifitas dari berbagai

instrument dan metodologi yang dikembangkan dan digunakan oleh DBE1 dalam

manajemen berbasis sekolah. Hal ini dilakukan dengan menilai berbagai aspek kinerja

DBE1 dan dampak dari pendampingan yang telah dilakukan.

Decentralized Basic Education 1 (DBE1)

Decentralized Basic Education 1 dibiayai oleh USAID dan dilaksanakan di Indonesia

oleh RTI International sejak 2005 hingga 2011. Dimulai pada akhir periode 1990 dan

terkait dengan otonomi daerah, Pemerintah Republik Indonesia secara progresif telah

mengadopsi berbagai kebijakan yang memberikan lebih banyak otonomi kepada

sekolah. DBE1 merupakan salah satu program pertama yang dibiayai oleh donor dan

yang terjun dan mendukung upaya ini. Dalam perjalanan usaha peningkatan mutu

pendidikan di Indonesia, keikutsertaan DBE1 tersebut cukup penting. Contohnya,

sebelum adanya program penggunaan dana BOS pada tahun 2005, sekolah pada

umumnya tidak memiliki perencanaan yang baik karena dana yang diberikan kepada

sekolah seringkali tidak mencukupi. Dengan adanya program BOS ini, jumlah dana

untuk sekolah menjadi meningkat. Bersama dengan pola kepemimpinan yang baik

dari kepala sekolah dan peran serta komite sekolah, perencanaan sekolah menjadi hal

yang penting dalam tata layanan dan manajemen keuangan sekolah.

Untuk meningkatkan manajemen dan tata layanan pendidikan dasar di 50

kabupaten/kota mitra, DBE1 bekerjasama dengan pemangku kepentingan sektor

pemerintahan kabupaten/kota tersebut dan juga lembaga atau instistusi terkait

setempat lainnya. Melalui kerjasama dengan 50 kabupaten/kota, DBE1 menjangkau

sekitar 10% dari jumlah populasi yang ada di Indonesia yaitu sekitar 240 juta orang.

Bersama-sama dengan pemerintah kabupaten/kota mitra, DBE1 memilih dua gugus

sekolah dasar di setiap kabupaten/kota mitra. Jika gugus yang terpilih pada awalnya

tidak memiliki madarasah, maka paling sedikit satu madrasah disertakan di setiap

gugus. Selain sekolah dasar, empat sekolah menengah pertama juga dipilih untuk

setiap kabupaten/kota mitra. Total sekolah yang terpilih adalah 1,310 dimana sekolah-

sekolah tersebut secara bertahap mengikuti program DBE1. Pada tahap pertama di

xxiv Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

tahun 2006, sekitar 650 sekolah mulai mengikuti program DBE1. Sekolah-sekolah ini

dikenal sebagai sekolah yang tergabung di Kohor 1. Tahap kedua untuk sekitar 650

sekolah lainnya dimulai pada tahun 2007. Sekolah-sekolah ini disebut sekolah Kohor

2.

DBE1 juga melatih pengawas sekolah yang merupakan bagian dari pemerintah

kabupaten/kota. Pengawas sekolah dilatih untuk memfasilitasi pelatihan di tingkat

gugus dan memberikan pendampingan di tingkat sekolah. Bersama dengan fasilitator-

fasilitator ini, DBE1 mendukung sekolah untuk menyiapkan dan melaksanakan

rencana kerja sekolah empat tahunan yang (1) terfokus kepada peningkatan mutu, (2)

berdasarkan berbagai kebutuhan yang diidentifikasi dengan menggunakan hasil

analisis data terkait profil sekolah, (3) menggambarkan aspirasi dan prioritas

pemangku kepentingan sekolah, (4) mencakup aspek-aspek utama dari program

sekolah, (5) menggunakan berbagai sumber pendanaan, (6) terkait langsung rencana

kerja dan anggaran sekolah tahunan, dan (7) dengan efektif dilaksanakan dan dipantau

oleh komite sekolah dan pemangku kepentingan lainnya. Sebelumnya, perencanaan

sekolah yang berbasis data merupakan hal yang sangat jarang dimiliki oleh sebagian

besar sekolah.

Untuk menyiapkan rencana kerja sekolah tersebut, setiap sekolah mitra membentuk

kelompok kerja yang terdiri dari kepala sekolah, guru, wakil dari masyarakat dan

komite sekolah. Kelompok kerja dari tiap-tiap sekolah dilatih di tingkat gugus.

Didampingi oleh fasilitator, kelompok kerja ini kemudian mengembangkan rencana

kerjanya di sekolah masing-masing. Untuk mendukung upaya mengumpulkan dan

menganalisis data pendukung rencana kerja sekolah ini, DBE1 mengembangkan dan

memperkenalkan sistem database sekolah. Walaupun banyak sekolah khususnya di

daerah pedesaan atau pedalaman pada saat itu tidak memiliki komputer, sistem

database sekolah ini tetap dikembangkan sesuai dengan rencana Kementerian

Pendidikan Nasional bahwa paling lambat pada tahun 2012 setiap sekolah sudah

memilliki komputer.

Pelatihan juga diberikan kepada kepala sekolah dan pimpinan pendidikan setempat

untuk meningkatkan kemampuan kepemimpinan mereka untuk lebih terbuka,

transparan, dan partisipatif. Pelatihan secara mendalam juga diberikan untuk

meningkatkan peran komite sekolah di beberapa bidang. Secara keseluruhan, dalam

periode tiga tahun setiap sekolah menerima lebih kurang 23 hari pelatihan dan 23

kunjungan fasilitasi. Dukungan secara intensif ini diberikan kepada 24 sekolah yang

terpilih sebagai mitra di kabupaten/kota mitra.

Menilai Dampak dari Pelaksanaan Program MBS DBE1 Secara umum, ―dampak‖ didefinisikan sebagai perubahan dalam indikator terkait

yang terjadi dengan adanya atau tanpa adanya suatu bentuk intervensi (White 2009).

Untuk keperluan penelitian ini, dampak didefinisikan sebagai perubahan-perubahan

yang disebabkan karena adanya kegiatan-kegiatan atau pendampingan DBE1. Untuk

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xxv

menilai berapa besar dampak yang telah terjadi, nilai ―fakta yang berlawanan‖

(counterfactual) harus ditentukan terlebih dahulu. Dalam hal ini, ―fakta yang

berlawanan‖ adalah bagaimana kondisi sekolah jika tidak ada kegiatan atau

pendampingan DBE1?

Secara ideal, ―fakta yang berlawanan‖ ditentukan dengan membentuk kelompok

terkontrol yang tidak mendapatkan pendampingan dari DBE1. Namun demikian,

dalam lingkungan nyata pengembangan pendidikan, hal ini tidak praktis maupun etis.

Membentuk kelompok terkontrol yang tidak mendapatkan pendampingan DBE1 akan

memerlukan: (1) identifikasi kelompok sekolah yang memiliki beberapa faktor yang

mirip antara satu dan lainnya dan ini bisa berarti sekolah yang berdekatan lokasinya,

dan (2) menempatklan kelompok ini dalam bentuk karantina untuk melindungi dari

pengaruh atau ―kontaminasi‖ adanya berbagai kegiatan. Hal ke dua ini berlawanan

dengan tujuan dari adanya DBE1 yang mendukung adanya diseminasi kegiatan seluas

mungkin. Hal ini dibahas dalam diskusi mengenai metodologi dibawah ini.

Laporan ini menilai tingkat keefektifan dari program MBS DBE1 dengan melihat

lebih jauh dampak program tersebut terhadap (1) perubahan dalam manajemen dan

tata layanan di sekolah mitra dan masyarakat, dan (2) sampai dimana program-

program DBE1 didiseminasi oleh pihak lain dan kegiatan diseminasi tersebut

melebihi cakupan dari DBE1 sendiri.

Metodologi

Sebelum program dimulai, data baseline dikumpulkan dari semua sekolah mitra. Data

terkait juga dikumpulkan secara berkala dalam periode lima tahun untuk

dibandingkan dengan data baseline dan mengukur hasil kegiatan-kegiatan DBE1.

Karena dalam metodologi ini tidak menggunakan kelompok yang terkontrol, maka

data baseline ini berfungsi sebagai data-data yang menunjukkan ―fakta yang

berlawanan;‖ jika kegiatan-kegiatan DBE1 tidak memberikan dampak terhadap dalam

hal-hal yang dilakukan di sektor pendidikan maka dapat diasumsikan nilai baseline

akan tetap sama selama DBE1 berlangsung. Walaupun pendekatan seperti ini

memberikan bukti yang baik untuk hasil kegiatan DBE1, namun untuk melihat

dampak dari kegiatan DBE1 tidak akan sebaik jika menggunakan percobaan yang

terkontrol. Selain itu, faktor-faktor lain juga mungkin menyebabkan terjadinya

perubahan di sekolah. Namun demikian, dengan menggunakan berbagai metodologi

untuk memantau perubahan yang terjadi dalam periode tersebut dan dengan mengukur

hasil dari penelitian, penulis dapat menunjukkan secara yakin adanya dampak dari

kegiatan DBE1 (Mayne 1999). 8

8 Lihat Heyward, Cannon, and Sarjono (in press) Implementing school-based management in Indonesia; impact

and lessons learned, Journal of Development Effectiveness, untuk penjelasan lebih rinci mengenai pendekatan

yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini termasuk pendekatan terhadap triangulasi. Laporan tersebut juga

membicarakan hal terkait kemungkinan adanya prasangka peneliti. Artikel ini menggambarkan tantangan dalam

mencapai ―standar emas‖ dalam melaksanakan evaluasi dampak di lapangan. Juga lihat Mayne (1999) terkait

―analisis kontribusi‖ seperti yang digambarkan dalam hubungannya dengan proyek pengembangan oleh Kotvojs

dan Shrimpton (2007).

xxvi Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

Dari tahun 2008 hingga 2010, suatu rangkaian penelitian secara menyeluruh telah

dilakukan dan bertujuan untuk menilai dampak program DBE1 terhadap sekolah. Hal

ini juga dilakukan untuk menggali berbagai cerita yang kaya dan menarik mengenai

program ini dan dampak terhadap sekolah. Dengan menggunakan beragam

metodologi, penelitian ini menghasilkan temuan yang menyeluruh. Tradisi riset

dengan menggabungkan beberapa metodologi telah dikembangkan dalam 20 tahun

terakhir sebagai pilihan lain terhadap riset kuantitatif maupun kualitatif selama ini.

Riset dengan berbagai metodologi ini menggunakan beragam instrumen yang

diperlukan untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan khusus dalam keterbatasan yang

ada dalam pelaksanaan penelitian (Teddlie dan Tashakkori, 2009).

Berikut ini adalah gambaran berbagai metode pengumpulan data dan instrumen yang

digunakan untuk menilai dampak pendampingan DBE1 dalam manajemen berbasis

sekolah:

1. Kegiatan rutin monitoring dan analisis untuk melihat pencapaian hasil kerja

DBE1 dibandingkan dengan data baseline. Hal ini dilakukan dengan

menggunakan 10 (dari 22) indikator terkait kinerja.

2. Rangkaian penelitian untuk mengetahui lebih lanjut sampai dimana rencana

kerja sekolah dilaksanakan di 500 sekolah mitra.

a. Pertama, dua penelitian tahunan secara kuantitatif terhadap semua

sekolah mitra dilakukan pada tahun 2009 dan 2010.

b. Kedua, dua penelitian lapangan secara kualitatif dilakukan untuk

menguji kebenaran data kuantitatif; satu penelitian dilakukan oleh tim

DBE1 dan menggunakan 32 sekolah. Penelitian lainnya dilakukan

secara independen oleh mitra kerja DBE1 dari Kementerian

Pendidikan Nasional dan Kementerian Agama di 46 sekolah.

3. Tiga penelitian dalam pendanaan sekolah yang meneliti hal-hal berikut:

a. tingkat dukungan masyarakat terhadap sekolah setempat dalam periode

tiga tahun setelah dimulainya pendampingan-pendampingan DBE1;

b. hasil dari kegiatan DBE1 yang bertujuan untuk mendukung komite

sekolah dalam mendapatkan pendanaan dari desa melalui musyawarah

perencanaan pembangunan (musrenbang); dan

c. dampak dari kegiatan DBE1 dalam analisis biaya operasional satuan

pendidikan terhadap pendanaan kabupaten/kota dan provinsi untuk

sekolah.

4. Wawancara terhadap kepala sekolah mitra mengenai persepsi mereka dalam

dampak dari pendampingan DBE1 kepada sekolah

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xxvii

5. Penelitian yang dilakukan dengan observasi yang mendalam dan melibatkan

peserta secara kualitatif yang dilakukan di delapan gugus di dua provinsi.

Penelitian ini dilakukan dalam periode satu bulan.

6. Rangkaian penelitian untuk mendokumentasikan hingga dimana dan mutu

diseminasi kegiatan-kegiatan DBE1 dalam manajemen berbasis sekolah di

sekolah non-mitra dengan menggunakan dana dari pemerintah kabupaten/kota

atau lembaga lainnya. Penelitian ini adalah:

a. Mendokumentasikan sampai dimana diseminasi dilakukan; khususnya,

jumlah sekolah yang mendiseminasi program DBE1, jumlah dana, dan

sumber dana kegiatan tersebut. Data dikumpulkan dengan mempelajari

laporan anggaran dan pendanaan dari pemangku kepentingan. Data

diverifikasi melalui kunjungan ke lapangan;

b. Penelitian secara kualitatif di 92 sekolah yang dilakukan oleh DBE1

pada tahun 2008. Kegiatan ini diikuti dengan penelitian ke dua di

sekolah-sekolah yang sama pada tahun 2010 untuk menentukan

keberlanjutan dan dampak dari kegiatan-kegiatan yang telah

didiseminasi, dan

c. Memonitor hingga dimana, jenis, dan mutu dari diseminasi program

manajemen berbasis sekolah DBE1 di 105 sekolah non mitra yang

berlokasi berdekatan dengan sekolah mitra. Kegiatan monitoring ini

dilakukan dalam periode lima tahun selama DBE1 berlangsung.

7. Selain itu, riviu tengah waktu proyek (Mid Term Review) yang dilakukan

secara independen oleh The Mitchell Group 2008 memberikan referensi dan

masukan lainnya yang dapat dijadikan basis untuk kegiatan DBE1 selanjutnya.

(triangulation point.)

Temuan-temuan

Penelitian-penelitian ini adalah penelitian menyeluruh yang menggunakan metodologi

berbeda dan dilakukan di beberapa lokasi. Temuan-temuan menunjukkan secara

konsisten bahwa pendampingan-pendampingan yang dilakukan DBE1 memiliki

dampak yang positif terhadap sekolah di Indonesia dalam perencanaan yang lebih

baik, partisipasi masyarakat, dan transparansi. Kegiatan-kegiatan DBE1 juga

berdampak positif terhadap sistem secara keseluruhan karena program-program DBE1

didiseminasi oleh pihak lainnya.

Sekolah Mitra

Seperti yang digambarkan pada Gambar 1 dibawah ini, pada saat penelitian baseline

dilakukan, dengan meggunakan 32 kriteria yang telah disetujui, hanya 2% dari

sekolah mitra yang memiliki rencana kerja sekolah yang baik. Setelah didampingi

oleh DBE1, angka tersebut meningkat menjadi 96%. Penelitian di lapangan

xxviii Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011

menunjukkan dari 7,063 program yang dicantumkan dalam rencana-rencana kerja

sekolah-sekolah dalam tahun pertama, 74% telah dilaksanakan oleh sekolah dan

masyarakat sekitarnya. Pada tahun ke dua, program-program yang dilaksanakan

meningkat menjadi 79%. Adapun program-program yang dilaksanakan oleh sekolah

misalnya program peningkatan cara mengajar guru, perbaikan lingkungan

pembelajaran di banyak sekolah, pengadaan sumber mengajar yang lebih baik, adanya

penambahan komputer, serta penambahan buku-buku dan alat bantu mengajar.

Walaupun penelitian ini tidak dapat menunjukkan bahwa perbaikan-perbaikan

tersebut menghasilkan peningkatan hasil pembelajaran, kami dapat mengambil

kesimpulan bahwa perbaikan-perbaikan ini membantu dalam menciptakan kondisi

yang baik untuk menghasilkan hasil pembelajaran yang lebih baik lagi.

Gambar 1: Pencapaian Hasil Jika Dibandingkan Dengan Data Baseline (Kohor 1: 526 sekolah)

Gambar 1 diatas juga menunjukkan adanya perbaikan dalam indikator terkait

transparansi di sekolah dan tingkat partisipasi masyarakat. Sebelum adanya dukungan

DBE1, sekolah jarang menampilkan laporan keuangan mereka di lebih dari dua

lokasi. Menurut data baseline yang dikumpulkan, hanya 16% sekolah yang

menampilkan laporan keuangan mereka di lebih dari dua lokasi sedangkan lebih dari

50% sekolah melaporkan kepada masyarakat di satu tempat saja atau tidak sama

sekali. Setelah adanya dukungan dari DBE1, 61% sekolah mendiseminasi laporan

keuangan mereka di tiga forum atau lebih. Hal ini termasuk menampilkan laporan di

papan pengumuman sekolah dan melaporan pada saat acara umum sekolah atau

pertemuan orangtua murid tahunan.

Peran komite sekolah dalam mempromosikan perbaikan dalam transparansi sangat

penting. Semakin banyak komite sekolah yang meminta sekolahnya untuk

mengumumkan laporan keuangan kepada masyarakat, menempatkan laporan tersebut

di papan pengumuman sekolah atau mengirimkan langsung kepada orangtua murid.

Angka terkait hal ini meningkat dari 50% pada saat baseline menjadi 88% setelah

adanya pendampingan dari DBE1.

Implementing School - Based Management in Indonesia; DBE1 Impact Study, 2011 xxix

Peran dari komite sekolah dalam kegiatan terkait perencanaan dan pendanaan sekolah

juga meningkat secara jelas. Pada saat data baseline dikumpulkan, hanya 13% komite

sekolah yang berpartisipasi dalam proses perencanaan dan pendanaan sekolah. Setelah

adanya dukungan dari DBE1, angka ini meningkat menjadi 84%. Anggota masyarakat

memberikan kontribusi lebih dari Rp. 25 milyar dalam bentuk tunai maupun barang

untuk mendukung sekolah dalam melaksanakan program-program dalam rencana

kerja sekolahnya. Hal ini berarti rata-rata setiap sekolah mendapatkan kontribusi

sekitar Rp. 23,520,000 dari masyarakat disekitar sekolah tersebut. Jumlah ini adalah

jumlah yang besar untuk masyarakat yang sebagian besar berasal dari latar belakang

ekonomi lemah. Kontribusi ini secara jelas merupakan hasil dari keterlibatan komite

sekolah dalam persiapan dan pengembangan rencana kerja sekolah. Ketika

pemerintah atau institusi setempat mendiseminasi program DBE1 dan tidak

melibatkan masyarakat dari awal proses tersebut, kontribusi seperti ini biasanya tidak

terjadi.

Selain itu, Rp. 1.1 milyar juga telah dialokasikan dari dana pedesaan untuk program

pengembangan sekolah di 106 desa yang diteliti (sekitar Rp. 11 juta per desa atau Rp

2.8 juta per sekolah). Hal ini merupakan sumber pendanaan yang baru untuk sekolah-

sekolah di Indonesia. Selain itu, sebagai hasil dari analisis biaya operasional sekolah

yang DBE1 telah lakukan di 49 kabupaten/kota, alokasi untuk sekolah yang berasal

dari dana daerah bertambah sebesar lebih dari Rp. 1 trilliun. Sekali lagi, data yang ada

tidak menunjukkan secara langsung perbaikan dalam hasil pembelajaran. Hal ini

melebihi cakupan dari penelitian ini. Namun demikian, dengan adanya partisipasi

masyarakat yang lebih baik dan pendanaan yang meningkat dapat membantu

menciptakan kondisi yang diperlukan untuk proses pembelajaran yang baik.

Sekitar 99% kepala sekolah mitra yang diwawancarai melaporkan bahwa mereka

percaya DBE1 memiliki dampak yang positif terhadap sekolah mereka. Banyak dari

mereka yang memberikan keterangan terperinci dan konkrit mengenai contoh-contoh

dampak yang baik tersebut. Yang paling sering disebutkan adalah dampak terhadap

perencanaan sekolah, diikuti oleh manajemen, kepemimpinan, dan administrasi

sekolah. Hasil penelitian kualitatif menunjukkan bahwa DBE1 memiliki ―… dampak

yang kuat, lebar, dan dalam terhadap sekolah, komite sekolah, orang tua murid, guru,

dan siswa. Bukti-bukti kuat ditemukan terutama untuk transparansi, partisipasi, dan

kegiatan manajemen sekolah yang responsif (Decentralized Basic Education 1, 2010).

Apakah perubahan-perubahan ini menghasilkan perbaikan dalam hasil pembelajaran

adalah suatu hal yang kurang jelas. Yang jelas disini adalah dukungan DBE1 terhadap

sekolah telah meningkatkan manajemen dan tata layanan sekolah mitra.

Diseminasi berbagai program DBE1 oleh mitra lokal

Tujuan da