Implementing School

8/10/2019 Implementing School

1/20


2/20

Implementing schoolperformance index (SPIn) in

Malaysian primary schoolsRadiah Othman and Fatimah Abd Rauf

Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the processes involved inimplementing school performance index (SPIN) a new key performance indicator and the resultsof its application in Malaysian public schools.

Design/methodology/approach A sample of 76 Malaysian schools from five districts wasselected randomly. The analytical procedures such as documentary analysis, observation and

interviews with 101 headmasters and principals, Parents-Teachers Association representatives andbrainstorming session with Schools Inspectors was used.

Findings Schools performed differently when evaluated using various criteria of their operationalefficiency and effectiveness. The results show that schools, which have scored higher in examinationresults (test scores) do not necessarily perform in other categories. In fact, the overall SPIN scoresindicated they are in the bottom list.

Practical implications SPIN can help authorities to better monitor the operational performance ofthe schools in providing quality education to future generations of Malaysians.

Originality/value In general, schools performance is measured based on students examinationresults (test scores). SPIN is introduced to propose that a school should be measured within itscapability as different schools will have different capacity. It is argued that operational efficiency andeffectiveness (by incorporating various elements such as leadership, measurement analysis andstrategic planning), is a better measure on how the school performs.

KeywordsPrimary schools, Students, Performance measures, Public schools, Malaysia

Paper typeResearch paper

IntroductionPerformance measurement is on the management agenda in both the public and theprivate sector. Increasing demand from the public for better transparency and serviceshas made it a vital component in government planning and management. The use ofthe public sector performance indicators can provide information on the efficiency andeffectiveness of programs designed by the government to address issues of publicinterest such as the public safety and health, education, environmental, social andeconomic issues.

Education is one of the biggest sectors in the public sector considering a largenumber of schools, students, teachers and administrators affected by the system.Though, a performance measurement system (PMS) is quite alien to Malaysianeducation sector, it is critical to measure how well the government funded schools haveperformed and what more can be done to improve them on continuous basis. Thoughseveral attempts have been made by the Ministry of Education to introduce a properPMS that measure the schools performance (such as Malaysian Education QualityStandards), such efforts have not materialized due to lack of support. This is notsurprising since in the UK, evidence suggests that cost reduction criteria assume

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

Schoolperformance

index

505

International Journal of EducationalManagement

Vol. 23 No. 6, 2009pp. 505-522

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0951-354X

DOI 10.1108/09513540910981032


3/20

ascendancy over quality criteria despite the rhetoric of quality that currently pervadesacademic institutions (Mather et al., 2007)

Measuring schools performance has become a quite controversial issue, especiallyin Malaysia, taking into consideration the risk it will have on the morale and

motivation of schools teachers and administrators. Nonetheless, since Malaysiaaspires to be the hub of global education in the near future, the hunt for the right oneis still on-going. With the increasing competition in the education sector, Malaysia hasto develop its own PMS that would appropriately address the stakeholders needs andreflect the actual performance of the schools.

A research collaboration between Universiti Teknologi MARA and PrimeMinisters Exchange Fellowship Programme (PERDANA) in Malaysia focuses ondeveloping a performance measurement indicators for Malaysian schools which focusnot only on examination results but also their operational efficiency and effectiveness.The tool is named the school performance index (SPIn), a measurement tool thatincorporates a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure four educationcriteria for performance excellence which include leadership; measurement, analysis

and knowledge management; strategic planning and UPSR Students results. SPIn is ageneric innovative tool and the first of its kind in Malaysia. It can compute indexes thatrank all schools in each district and state in the country thus, can provide a gooddatabase reference for the Ministry of Education in monitoring and supervising itsresources allocation. The index would enable schools to monitor their ranking ascompared to other schools from other districts and states so that they can revise theirstrategies. This enables the Ministry to identify struggling schools and districts whileassessing the achievement of its policies. SPIn has been tested in 76 schools in the stateof Selangor in Malaysia and in January 2007, it won a Silver Medal in Innovation,Invention & Design (IID) Competition organized by the Institute of Research,Development & Commercialisation (IRDC), Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.SPIn has also been selected to compete in the Exposition of Research and Inventions of

International Institutions of Higher Learning (PECIPTA) in August 2007 and MalaysiaTechnology Expo (MTE) in February 2008. SPIn can be further developed to addressvarious criteria and needs of Malaysian education system.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction and overview ofimplementation process of a new PMS in primary schools in Malaysia. In so doing, itfocuses on the issues and challenges associated with various stages of theimplementation. In concluding, an attempt is made to evaluate whether theimplementation of the new performance measurement system might help measurethe operational efficiency and effectiveness of the schools in managing their resources,which is still lacking in the education system.

Performance measurement and management in the public sectorPerformance measures have been long recognised as an integral part of the planningand control cycle (Barnard, 1962) despite the traditional criticisms of these measuressuch as lack strategic focus and fail to provide data on quality, responsiveness andflexibility (Skinner, 1974); fail to provide information on what customers want and howcompetitors are performing (Kaplan and Norton, 1992) and historically focused (Dixonet al., 1990). The Balanced Scorecard provides an excellent conceptual overview andframework for performance measurement. Neely (1999) listed seven main reasons whybusiness performance measurement receives continuous attention and emphasis: the

IJEM23,6

506


4/20

changing nature of work; increasing competition; specific improvement initiatives;national and international awards; changing organisational roles; changing externaldemands; and the power of information technology.

Especially important in the public sector, performance measures are the essence for

continuous improvement so that the public can have better services at greater levels ofefficiency. The public sector needs to constantly seek ways so that the processes can beimproved before their services are delivered to the public at large. Thus, it needs toestablish benchmarking to know where and why its performance shortfalls. Thisperformance gap can provide insights on what it needs to improve and strategies andhelp the management of the organisations to effectively (to what extent are objectivesexpected to be achieved in a given time frame?) control its resources efficiently (whatlevel of resourcing is thought necessary to allow such achievements). According toOtley (1999), the continual need to justify the use of resources produces similarpressures in the private sector for improvement and efficiency.

Strategy and objectives that the organisations wanting to pursue will heavilyinfluence the choice of performance measures to be used. Any controlled system

requires objectives and goals against which its performance can be assessed (Otley andBerry, 1980). Strategies are the means of achieving the objectives. In Malaysia, theMinistry of Education main objective is providing quality education to the futuregenerations and the country is moving forward to become the central for education hubin the region. Effectively implementing a performance measurement system hasbecome a critical issue in achieving these objectives.

There are a number of factors that contribute to successful implementation of aperformance measurement system. Kalajainen (2001) highlighted that commitment to aperformance measurement culture, commitment from the top, realistic expectation andadequate and appropriate resources as the key factors. The organisation shouldprovide direction and support for improvement to provide such environment topromote the performance measurements for decision making. In a case study on

further education, Mather et al. (2007) found that many of the views expressed bysenior college managers were remarkably dissonant with the views expressed byworkers lower down the organisational hierarchy indicating that the world view at thetop of these organisations was not shared by those lower down at the chalk face(Worrall et al., 2004). Thus, the leaders should play a greater role and stress theimportance and value of the measurements to lower level employees. The performancemeasurement system should be implemented in a more realistic manner by selecting anarea for the pilot study for a start. Lastly, such initiatives should be made high profileand the positive impact they can bring to the organisation should be clearlycommunicated to all levels of the organisation. The implementation action plan withmilestone should be clearly defined with quality control in place. A definedaccountability is important to ensure the owner of the information understand his

responsibilities. Continuous improvement should be strived and effectivecommunication can help the measurement system to become the vital source ofinformation.

Performance measurement in education sectorIn a more open and competitive environment, the education sector is found to be morereceptive to changes as the need to adapt to changes is as highly needed as in theprivate businesses. For example, the universities in the USA and Australia are more

Schoolperformance

index

507


5/20

devoted to knowledge management (Ow et al., 2001). It is well known that thejurisdictions within the United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, andAustralia and some regions of Latin America appear to have well institutionalisedchoice and testing regimes. On the other hand, Canada, France, and Germany have

more limited connections between their existing markets and testing regimes, fewerparents as yet have embraced a consumer reports mindset (for comparisons, seeCarnoy and McEwan, 2001; Dronkers, 2004; Fiske and Ladd, 2000; Gewirtzet al., 1995;Gorardet al. 2001; Hirsch, 2002; Plank and Sykes, 2003). In Asian countries, such asMalaysia and Singapore, language and education remain politically sensitive issuesbecause language is closely linked to race and culture (Glad, 1998). Since both countriesare currently moving very fast towards Knowledge Economy, this suggests forproviders of higher education and training in Malaysia to look into new principles ofmanagement that have emerged globally in recent years (Ow et al., 2001). Revolution isnow underway resulting concomitant changes in both management and educationcurriculum of Malaysian higher education institutions. For example, Malaysian highereducation system has been under much pressure to deliver a new kind of organisation

to train a new kind of graduate. Nonetheless, the education reaction appears to be muchless rapid and this can be due to Asian culture (Ow et al., 2001).

Introducing a new PMS has always encountered debates and critics. But this neverstops or hinders initiatives in developing a better PMS for educational institutions. InThailand, for example, Rompho (2004) reported that the application of a BalancedScorecard (BSC) to a university is an increasingly popular PMS application amongresearchers (Rompho, 2004). He noted that 27 universities use or are mentioned to usethe BSC techniques: eighteen in US; six in the UK; the rest in Canada, Australia andThailand. The extent of application is diverse ranging from its use in only revenuegenerating units, libraries, academic department to the extreme point, to the wholeuniversity.

Within schools context, Sarricoet al.(2004) showed that in contrast to other areas

like health care, social care, police forces, and local government, the literature on PMSapplication is still lacking. In Asian countries, values are perceived, to be directly andindirectly, dictate on how the educational institutions should be measured. In primaryschools, Malaysia and Singapore have been reported to have education textbook in astrict moral tone. Glad (1998) noted that both governments think that Asian values aredifferent from Western values and that the former is superior. Similar to highereducation, schools are also subject to often, contradictory forces of autonomy versusexternal accountability, both to the state that funds them and to the general public(Sarricoet al., 2004, p.1205). As a result, schools are encouraged to conform to legalconventions, rather than to provide effective services (Chubb and Moe, 1990) as theyhave the obligation to please rule-bound bureaucrats for funding purposes (Daviesand Quirke, 2007). Thus, reducing the number of regulations for schools is seen aseliminating the need for rule following and may reroute decision making toward moreof problems solving and ultimately, boosting achievement (Moe, 2001; Ouchi, 2003).

There are many reasons cited in the literature, which trigger schools to improvetheir performance and be more competitive. For example, political pressures in the pasttwo decades is said to have influence schools to improve (Davies and Quirke, 2007).Also, markets are now seen to shift the concern of schools from inputs to outcomes(Davies and Quirke, 2007) as they compel schools to clarify their missions, demonstratetheir effectiveness, and satisfy customers. However, regardless of the private and

IJEM23,6

508


6/20

public schools environment, the strategic objectives of educational institutions shouldinclude achieving educational outcomes for their students and providing benefits to thecommunity and other stakeholders (Somerset, 2004, p. 1230).

In order to achieving educational and social benefits for their students, schools have

started using various PMS application in their operation. In the UK, September 2000marked a new agenda when a new PMS was introduced by statutory force into allstate-maintained primary and secondary schools (Brown, 2004). According to Brown,the introduction of performance management into Englands primary schools hasnever escaped the controversial part. Factors which appear to influence the PMeffectiveness in a particular primary school include the extent to which: the head,teachers, school governors and performance management adviser are appropriatelyand sufficiently well trained to implement the initiative; the schools organisationalculture is such that the performance management objectives which the head andteachers receive are sufficiently specific, measurable, relevant and challenging; themethods and indicators adopted to measure the performance of the head and teachersare considered to be sufficiently varied and fair; sufficient resources are available to

implement teachers individual professional development plans; and the associated paysystem is perceived to be both fair and workable. In another research by Boyne andChen (2007), the extent of performance improvement is shown to have influencedpositively by the presence of a target. The study was conducted in 147 English localeducation authorities between 1998 and 2003. The results were consistent with theview that clear and quantified strategic priorities lead to better organizationaloutcomes.

In Portugal, Sarrico et al. (2004) investigated the relevance of applying a BSC insecondary schools. They noted that the most positive aspect resulting from theapplication of the BSC were the feeling that it led to a professional management of theschool. However, the understanding of how the schools initiatives affect its results,and the link between strategy and performance measurement is very critical to be well

understood and defined before the BSC initiative takes place. The study also recordedresistance of some teachers to the idea of individual performance assessment. InAustralia, there are about 9,640 schools from three main categories government,catholic and independent (Somerset, 2004). Somerset reported that there is strongevidence that the performance measurement tool has significantly improved thesectors understanding of the financial, staffing, and operational imperatives in schoolmanagement and has facilitated informed and more sophisticated discussion on thesetting of goals and in assessing the affordability of the schools strategies.

Similarly in Malaysia, the Ministry of Education had taken rigorous efforts andinitiatives in improving the quality of education to its future generation. The mission ofthe Ministry is to develop a world-class quality education system, which will realise thefull potential of individuals and fulfil the aspiration of the Malaysian nation. However,in Malaysia, the evaluation of schools relies almost exclusively on school inspections orschool audits conducted by the Inspectorate of Schools (Naidoo, 2000). The SchoolInspectorates conduct inspections and external school reviews, which ranges fromnormal inspections, full inspections, follow-up inspections to special inspections.

The Inspectorates of schools introduced the Higher Standards for QualityEducation (SKPM) in the year 2000 to help schools engage in self evaluation. Theadoption of the SKPM policy introduced a multi-tier system of standards that wouldunderpin school inspections and school evaluation more broadly. SKPM standards

Schoolperformance

index

509


7/20

comprise of eight imperatives covering areas such as mission and vision,organizational system, organizational climate, strategic planning, implementation,evaluation and improvement, information and school products. The informationderived from this self assessment is used to rank schools current performance on a

seven-point scale ranging from extremely weak (score 1) to par excellence (score 7). Theevaluation instrument has 12 elements categorized under four dimensions:

(1) leadership;

(2) organisational management;

(3) educational programme management; and

(4) students performance.

The school inspectorates use the instrument to audit schools including for theevaluation for Potential School Award of the Country and Education MinisterQuality Award. The instrument is also used by the State Education Department andDistrict Education Department for monitoring purposes. The instrument also serves as

a warning signal of problematic schools for further actions.This is quite similar to the practice in Ontario where all public schools were

required to administer province-wide tests from the Education Quality andAccountability Office (EQAO). The results were then listed in district and provincialweb sites (Davies and Quirke, 2007) and available to all stakeholder. A well-knownconservative think tank (the Fraser Institute) uses these data to rate each public schoolin well-publicized tables.

However, in Malaysia themodus operandiof the SKPM is that the schools will scorethemselves to indicate in which category it is in, from the weakest school toexcellent school category. The school inspectorates will then audit the schools toverify the scores especially for the awards stated above. Unfortunately, thebrainstorming session with the School Inspectorate of Selangor revealed that some

schools intentionally evaluate themselves incorrectly. Most of the schools did not wantto declare the actual category they were in for various reasons. For example, some lowperformer schools ranked themselves average in order to avoid further inspection.

Further, Naidoo (2000) reported that other school stakeholders such asParent-Teacher-Association (PTA) who provide support and resources were notinvolved or played only a little role in the SKPM evaluation. In addition, our interviewswith the Schools Headmasters in the district of Selangor (Hulu Langat) during the pilotstudy revealed that SKPM evaluation required too detail and too much information.The headmasters complained that they had to spend a lot of time just to fill up theform. This problem discouraged many headmasters from sending over the evaluationform.

The instrument also did not measure the operational efficiency and effectiveness ofthe schools. It also ignores the location, facilities and infrastructures which have beenfound to affect a schools performance. A study by Davies and Quirke (2007) in Torontofound out that non-elite private schools seek niches, avoid performance indicators, anddilute formal structures, while older elite schools do the opposite. They concluded thatthat the impact of markets on schools is mitigated by local institutional conditions.

SKPM like many other PMS for schools tends to focus on the assessment ofstudents achievement and not the overall school performance. It is said that test scoreshave always been used and accepted as a simplified benchmark to compare the quality

IJEM23,6

510


8/20

of different schools. These scores represent a type of commensuration (Espeland andStevens, 2003) that converts a range of school attributes into a shared currency (Daviesand Quirke, 2007). They were believed able to offer educational consumers atransparent and ostensibly universal basis by which to compare schools (see Rowan

and Miskel, 1999) and a lever to force schools to be accountable for minimal outcomes,to make instruction more transparent, and to promote continual quality improvement(Ouchi, 2003).

However, we believe that examination results should not be the ultimate indicatorfor schools to be the best as not all schools are fortunate to have similar facilities andallocation to excel. When test scores become a prime technology to judge theeffectiveness of schools, they focus attention on a schools achievement-relatedfeatures, perhaps relegating its other qualities to a realm of unmeasured irrelevance(Espeland and Stevens, 2003; Persell, 2000; Wells, 2002; Davies and Quirke, 2007).Acording to Lee (2006), an effective PMS is the one that takes a holistic approach, notover emphasising one aspect at the expense of the others. There should be a newperformance measurement instrument that is able to measure the actual effectiveness

and efficiency of the schools in delivering its stated objectives within the resources andfacilities available at the schools. It is just fair to evaluate the performance of theschools within their controllable variables.

Lee (2006) has proposed a performance management framework for public schoolsdeveloped based on the balanced scorecard principle in Malaysia. The performancedeterminant comprises of four elements; customer orientation, learning and growth,internal processes and financial management based on focus group discussions, whichwere later transformed into Likert-Scale Questionnaires. The framework was validatedusing survey data from secondary schools in Sarawak, Malaysia and found that themodel has an adequately good fit. The results indicated that a desired organisationaloutcome is the result of well planned and managed performance-oriented managementpractices. Also, the desired organisational outcome is not the cause of a single factor

but the results of interactions of a multitude of factors. Since the model has not beenextended to other schools in Malaysia, we have taken a pro-active approach bybringing insight on how schools should be evaluated based on the Baldridge NationalQuality Program Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (2007), to develop anew performance measurement system for Malaysian schools. It is developed with theintention to help improved the Ministrys assessment and monitoring instruments onschools performance.

School performance index (SPIn)The school performance index (SPIn) was developed in order to measure the educationcriteria for performance excellence in schools. The introduction of SPIN as a new

instrument for school self evaluation is an important start in developing a more holisticapproach to primary school evaluation in Malaysia. SPIN is a simple butcomprehensive evaluation index that takes into consideration feedback from allstakeholders: school management and administrator, teachers, students and parentsteachers association. The school performance index (SPIn) is divided into four maincategories as follows:

(1) leadership;

(2) measurement;

Schoolperformance

index

511


9/20

(3) analysis and knowledge management; and

(4) strategic planning and examination results.

LeadershipThe leadership category examines the organizations senior leaders methods ofguidance and governance in the school. Leadership was measured using fourdimensions:

(1) vision and values;

(2) communication and organizational performance;

(3) governance and social; and

(4) responsibilities and ethical behaviour.

Vision and values refer to the vision, mission and values statements that werepublicised to everyone at the school. We interviewed parties involved in setting theschools vision, mission, and values statements were asked. In addition, ten students,five teachers, three support staff and three representatives from PIBG were alsointerviewed. The researchers also visited places where normally those statements areplaced explicitly, the main office, meeting room, hall, school wall etc. The knowledge ofthe school vision, mission or values statements is classified into three levels. The levelof knowledge is evident from the number of interviewees that could answer thequestions that were posed to them.

The second dimension of leadership is communication and organizationalperformance. This reflects the obligation of the school in displaying the organizationchart, frequency of management meetings held with teachers and Parents-TeachersAssociation committee members. Again, the documents were reviewed to verify thatmeetings were held as stated. Budget is an important criterion that needs to be looked

into. The level of openness of information should be evident in the variable of partiesthat were involved in monitoring and reviewing the schools budget. They wereinterviewed and the frequency of meetings, and Minutes of Meetings with the FinanceCommittee were examined.

Communication, the third dimension reflects the responsibility of the school tocommunicate school performance to stakeholders. The methods of communication areassessed by reviewing relevant documents and interviewing the staff. It is essential toinform teachers and staff performance on their performance. Thus, the schools werealso evaluated on methods of informing an individuals performance. In fact, theschools mid-term results were also examined to determine how the studentsperformance was actually communicated to their parents or caretakers.

The availability of conducive and safe environment for students and staff, were

measured under governance and social responsibilities dimension. In addition, theethical behaviour gave an indication whether the school had provided enoughmechanisms of handling students disciplinary problem or mechanism of handlingproblematic teacher.

2. Measurement, analysis and knowledge managementMeasurement, analysis and knowledge management (MAKM) examines how theorganization selects, gathers, analyses, manages and improves its data, information

IJEM23,6

512


10/20

and procuring assets. MAKM were measured by using two dimensions that are thedatabase management and the assessment procedure.

The database management refers to students, teachers and administrative staffsprofile respectively. Data such as academic results, personal details, salary data and

performance appraisal are some of the examples reviewed by the researchers bylooking at the database system in each of the schools inspected. The researchers alsoexamined procurement records such as suppliers details, quotations and details ofitems purchased. The record on the facilities of the schools such as classrooms,furniture and fittings and science labs were also counter-checked with the database.

The second dimension of MAKM is assessment procedures. Documents werereviewed to verify the efficiency and effectiveness of the schools in complying with therequirement of the Ministry of Education. Results of examinations and tests conductedin the schools helped researchers analysing the students performance by subject,grade and year as compared to previous years. The setting and vetting of examinationprocedures were reviewed by the researchers to examine the school efforts inmaintaining the quality of their assessment procedures.

3. Strategic planningStrategic planning reflects the schools commitment to achieve long term and shortterm planning as directed by the Ministry. It is measured using two dimensions thatare strategic development and strategic deployment. Strategic development examineshow school establishes its strategy and strategic objectives whilst strategicdeployment is used to measure the extent to which the strategies are employed inorder to perform the strategic planning.

The researcher reviewed documents on how the strategic planning in schools wasbeing developed and interviewed the parties involved in developing such planning.The strategic objective can be based on vision and mission of the school, directive from

the Ministry of Education, stakeholders feedback or from own initiatives. The mostimportant thing is to examine whether follow up actions have been taken on any failureor problems faced by the school in implementing the strategic planning.

Documents on the plan, do, check, analysis (PDCA) for both short term and longterm strategic planning were also reviewed. The strategic planning is important tocover various aspects such as teachers, facilities, examinations and natural disaster.Therefore it is important that the procedures for each of the strategic planning bedocumented and made available to relevant authorities.

An inspection was conducted to examine the frequencies of the meetings and theparties involved in monitoring of both the long and short term planning by the schools.Frequently, the Headmaster, Senior Headmaster for Academic, Students Affairs andCo-curriculum, Subject Resource Teacher and representative from the

Parents-Teachers Association.

4. Primary schools students assessment results (UPSR)The final UPSR students results are important to indicate their performance. Theexamination is the final examination sit by a primary school student to evaluate his orher performance in primary schools. The results would be used as eligibility criteria togood Secondary Schools. In this research, 2006 UPSR results were analysed in terms ofnumber of students obtaining A for the five identified critical subjects that are Malay

Schoolperformance

index

513


11/20

Language (Comprehension), Malay Language (Writing), English, Mathematics andScience.

Implementing SPIn in Malaysian primary schools

Implementing a performance measurement tool like SPIn needs careful considerationand planning. It has undergone various stages since its inception such as thefollowings:

Phase one: exploratory studyThe study started by conducting an exploratory study through discussions andinterviews with headmasters and principals of four (4) schools in Shah Alam. The mainpurpose of the exploratory study was to gauge what type of information were availableat sites and to identify the administrative processes practiced by Malaysian schools.The schools were initially hesitated to give full co-operation even though theresearchers had obtained approvals from the Ministry of Education to conduct thestudy. They wanted clear instruction from the State Education Department. The StateEducation Department representative informed the researchers that though the issueof having a proper PMS for Malaysian schools was worth investigating, it could alsoinvite criticisms and debates. However, all headmasters and principals interviewedwere very co-operative and provided valuable insights on the issues. The interviewsresults initiated the development of a set of questionnaire based on the BaldridgeNational Quality Program Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (2007)which consist of seven criterions:

(1) leadership;

(2) strategic planning;

(3) student, stakeholder and market focus;

(4) measurement, analysis and knowledge management;(5) faculty and staff focus;

(6) process management; and

(7) results.

The questionnaire was refined to suit the environment of the Malaysian primaryschools.

Phase two: focused group interviewsDue to the small number of schools interviewed during the exploratory study, theresearchers took a major step by inviting representatives from schools in District ofSepang to join in a seminar discussing on the issues. The Member of Parliament of thedistrict had been very supportive of the project and encouraged the District EducationOfficer to facilitate researchers in organising the seminar. This Phase Two of researchconcentrated on focused group interviews and discussion with 31 headmasters,principals, and Deputy Headmaster /Principal from 31 schools attending the seminar.The interviews were held on 20 June 2006. The aim of this focus group interviews wasto obtain first hand information on the procedures of allocating subjects to teachers,facilities available in the schools, type and frequency of meetings held, personnelinvolved in strategic decision making and preparation for examinations. The schools

IJEM23,6

514


12/20

representatives questioned on the benefit of the research to their future careeradvancement. Some of them were sceptical and concerned with the impact of the PMSon their performance appraisals. Most of the representatives doubted any PMS couldactually measure their actual performance because they did not have similar facilities,

technologies, support due to many reasons such as locality, size and policies.Nonetheless, the researchers took the opportunity to test the questionnaire developedin the First Stage. There were many valuable feedback obtained from the session thatserved as important input to the scorecard development in the next stage.

Phase three: brainstorming sessionA round table discussion was held by the researchers and they realised that they wereoverloaded with information collected from the previous stage. The issues andinformation obtained were displayed on the board for the researchers to scrutinise theinformation available. The researchers then fine tune the information into categories. Itwas realised that the most difficult part was to achieve consensus on the categories.

The categories were them embedded into the questionnaire. The questionnaire waslater converted into scorecards in a brainstorming session by the researchers. Thescorecards comprise of questions designed to tap the importance of certain informationto the schools and the stakeholders in measuring the education criteria for performanceexcellence. The researchers decided that a 3-levels scorecard would better capture theinformation/variables to be measured. Level 3 is the highest score of the itemsmeasured in the scorecard, Level 2 is the average score and Level 1 represents thelowest score. In order to suit the primary schools in Malaysia, the SPIN which waspreviously developed based on the seven criteria was re-group into four criteria ofLeadership; Measurement, analysis and knowledge management; Strategicplanning and UPSR 2006.

Phase four: development of scorecardThe scorecard developed in Phase 3 was further discussed in a workshop andbrainstorming session with the school inspectorates of Selangor State. This is a veryimportant step as the inspectorates are the implementers or auditors of the currentSKPM evaluation method. The researchers believed that they were the right people togive opinion and feedback of the refined scorecard. The inspectorates explained theconcepts behind SKPM, its benefits and drawbacks. They also highlighted items oftheir concerns in evaluating schools and the impact t might have on the schoolsmanagement, teachers and students. They shared their fieldwork experience auditingthe schools and providing practical advice in the fieldwork. The scorecard was furtherrefined based on their valuable input including the technical jargons used in the

scorecard. A draft scorecard was later presented at the end of the session.

Phase five: pilot test of scorecardPhase Five comprised of a pilot test of the scorecard in two schools in the district ofHulu Langat and Klang. In-depth interviews and extensive reviews were carried outduring the pilot study. The empirical information obtained from these two schoolswere utilized for further refinement of the scorecard which resulted in two questionsbeing deleted due to redundancy and unsuitable for primary schools in Malaysia.

Schoolperformance

index

515


13/20

Phase six: final implementationIn Malaysia, there are three types of primary schools depending on the medium ofinstruction that are Malay (SK), Chinese (SJKC) and Tamil (SJKT). The finalimplementation was conducted in seventy-six schools selected based on stratified

random sampling. However, for consistency purposes, only Grade A governmentschools in the urban area of Selangor were visited. Various stakeholders such as theprincipals, teachers, students, support staffs and the Parents-Teachers Association(PTA) representatives were interviewed. All relevant documents were examined andall facilities and surrounding were observed and inspected.

FindingsData for the analysis were obtained from a questionnaire survey of 76 primary schoolsmade up of 60 national primary school (SK), ten national type (Chinese) primary school(SJKC) and six national type (Tamil) primary school (SJKT). These schools wererandomly selected from five districts in Selangor, namely, Petaling, Gombak, Klang,

Hulu Langat, and Sepang.The overall school performance index (SPIn) is a composite score (measured in

percentage) of four dimensions, each of which is made up of several components. Thefour dimensions are leadership (LD), measurement, analysis & knowledgemanagement (MA&KM), strategic planning (SP), and UPSR results (UPSR). Thescore ranges from 0 to 100. In the discussion that follows, these abbreviations or theirfull designations will be used interchangeably.

From the analysis of the 76 schools, four types of scores were computed that areRanking of SPIn Score by Dimension and District; Mean Profile Plot of SPIn byDistrict; Overall Performance of School by District and Percentage of Schools in Topand Bottom ten Positions by District.

As can be seen in Table I and Figure 1, on the average, schools from the Sepang

district are marginally superior (76.2) to those from the other districts in the overallperformance (SPIn). There is an indication that they also lead in MA & KM (96.0) andstrategic planning (85.6). Measurement analysis, knowledge management and strategicplanning are interrelated. While schools strive to implement database managementand assessment procedures as part of MAKM, they need to ensure that these facilitateschools in achieving their short and long-term goals as directed by the Ministry.According to Jauchau (2001), knowledge management involves efficiently connectingthose who know to those who need to know, and converting personal knowledge toorganisational knowledge. People are receptive of valuable ideas and information, butthey tend to move on, taking their knowledge with them. The challenge is to find waysto extract and share the knowledge. This indicates the importance of strategic planningan important ingredient to Knowledge Management. Further, Owen et al.(2001) statedthat one major factor that hinders organisations from achieving high level ofperformance is the lack of understanding of the organisations external environmentwhich leads to failure in translating the organisations vision, mission and values intoeffective strategies and processes. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the schools inSepang outperformed the other schools because they have highest marks in MAKMand strategic planning. This is further evidenced in the performance of schools inPetaling district. They have rather poor placing in MA & KM and strategic planning,and ranked last in leadership. They only ranked highest in UPSR and the score is quite

IJEM23,6

516


14/20

Ranking Number of school District SPI score

Leadership1 11 Gombak 73.8

2 3 Sepang 73.73 15 Klang 72.04 10 Hulu Langat 72.05 37 Petaling 70.0

Measurement, analysis and knowledge management1 3 Sepang 96.02 10 Hulu Langat 89.13 37 Petaling 87.94 11 Gombak 86.05 15 Klang 85.9

Strategic planning1 3 Sepang 85.6

2 10 Hulu Langat 81.73 37 Petaling 80.74 15 Klang 68.45 11 Gombak 63.0

UPSR results1 37 Petaling 54.62 15 Klang 44.93 10 Hulu Langat 43.34 3 Sepang 42.25 11 Gombak 39.4

Overall1 3 Sepang 76.22 10 Hulu Langat 73.73 37 Petaling 72.74 11 Gombak 72.15 15 Klang 71.8

Table I.SPIn by dimension and

district

Figure 1.Mean profile plot of SPIn

by district

Schoolperformance

index

517
http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/09513540910981032&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=329&h=162


15/20

low (54.6). Their overall SPIn score ranked lower than schools in Sepang and HuluLangat.

Schools in Klang district consistently occupied the bottom of the ranking, third inleadership; last in MAKM; second last in Strategic Planning. Though they score second

highest in UPSR results, the overall SPIn score is the lowest. Similar performance canbe said with schools from Gombak. Though they rank high in terms of leadership butthey ranked second last in MAKM, last in strategic planning and UPSR result. Theyoutperformed schools in Klang by scoring overall 72.1 as compared to 71.8. Theseschools are weak in MAKM and strategic planning and these reflected in their overallachievement in SPIn scores.

Previous PMS for Malaysian primary schools concentrated on their UPSR results.As what we can see in the results in Table I, though schools in Petaling and Klangoccupy the top two placing in UPSR results, they were ranked third and last in theoverall SPIn score. It clearly indicates that they are many other factors, beside UPSRresults, that need to be taken into consideration in determining whether a schoolperform or otherwise and that UPSR results are not the ultimate criteria for schoolsperformance.

The schools performance is simplified in Figure 1 above. On the average, schools inthe Sepang district are marginally superior in the overall performance (76.2 per cent) ascompared with those from other districts. These schools also perform marginally betterin two components, namely, management analysis & knowledge management andstrategic planning. However, these results must also be interpreted with caution due tothe disparity in the sample sizes.

Table II displays the performance of schools in various districts in accordance totheir scores. A total 15 per cent schools in Petaling, 20 per cent schools in Hulu Langat,10 per cent schools in Gombak and 33 per cent schools in Sepang scores above 80.Thus, it can be concluded that most of the high scoring schools come from Sepang and

none is from the district of Klang. As stated earlier, schools from Sepang are found toscore highest in MAKM and Strategic planning as compared to schools in Klang andGombak. One school in Klang and two schools in Gombak are the only schools score inthe range of 50-59.9. There was one worst performing school in Petaling which scorebelow 50 though overall Petaling schools score highest in UPSR result. Other than that,schools from Klang (68 per cent) and Sepang (67 per cent) dominate the scores in therange of 70-79.9. The highest number of schools score in the range of 60-69.9 were fromHulu Langat (40 per cent).

Similar results are found when the schools performance was analysed further bylooking at the percentages in the Top Ten and Bottom Ten of the overall SPIn ranking

Petaling(34 schools) Klang(19 schools) Hulu Langat(10 schools) Gombak(10 schools) Sepang(3 schools)District /Score n % n % n % n % n %

80-100 5 15 0 2 20 1 10 1 3370-79.9 18 53 13 68 4 40 6 60 2 6760-69.9 10 29 5 26 4 40 1 10 050-59.9 0 1 5 0 2 20 040-49.9 1 3 0 0 0 0

Table II.Overall performance ofschools by district

IJEM23,6

518


16/20

(Table III). It is noted that the highest percentage of schools in Sepang are in the TopTen Ranking (33.3 per cent) as compared to other districts. It is also worth noting thatnone of the schools in Sepang is in the Bottom Ten list. The highest percentage ofschools in the Bottom Ten is from Gombak with 18.2 per cent. None of the schools in

Klang is in the TOP TEN list and this supports the findings in Table II, which indicatethat none of the high scoring schools is from Klang.

The educational authority at the district level would certainly find these figuresuseful for monitoring and policy making purposes. As the evidences suggest, it can bea mechanism for State Education Department to closely monitor the schoolsperformance and trigger the department to examine the needs and problems faced bythe nonperforming schools. This would help the education department to channel themuch needed resources to these schools so that they too can improve their performanceand compete with the other schools in the league.

Nonetheless, a further research should be conducted to find out reasons why schoolsin Sepang and Hulu Langat outperform schools in Petaling, Gombak and Klangespecially when most of these low performing schools score high in UPSR results.

Locality is obviously not the main factor as schools in Sepang and Hulu Langat aresituated in more rural areas as compared to schools in Petaling and Klang. Until suchresearch is conducted, we find it intriguing to note that the high performing schoolsemphasis strongly on Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management. Theseschools also score high marks on Strategic Planning that is how committed the schoolsin meeting the objectives of the Ministry. Strategic planning looks at how schoolsdevelop and deploy their strategies. Thus, we can safely assume that the schools,which aligned their strategies properly in tapping the knowledge management of thefuture have better determination as their vision and mission are more focused and thisdrives the overall performance of the schools.

ConclusionThe issue on how to measure a school performance has always been a controversialissue yet previous researches have yet arrived to a definite conclusion on themeasurement criteria. This has motivated a research to be carried out to develop ameasurement tool that incorporates a set of key performance indicators (KPI) tomeasure education criteria for performance excellence. The basic idea is that schoolsperformance should not be measured only on their performance via examinationresults. School Performance Index (SPIn) is a generic innovative tool and the first of itskind in Malaysia. It was developed after series of studies in 76 schools in the state ofSelangor in Malaysia. The total scores include not only the examination results such asUPSR but also, leadership; measurement, analysis and knowledge management; andstrategic planning. As such, they can give better indicator on the schools overall

District Top 10 (% of schools in district) Bottom 10 (% of schools in district)

Petaling 16.2 16.2Hulu Langat 20.0 10.0Sepang 33.3 0.0Gombak 9.1 18.2Klang 0.0 6.7

Table III.Percentage of schools in

top and bottom tenpositions by district:

overall SPIn

Schoolperformance

index

519


17/20

performance, that is, their operational efficiency and effectiveness in managing theirresources. As stated by Owen et al. (2001), these are important for organisations toachieve high level of performance. Also, the results show that schools, which excel inexamination category do not necessary perform well in other categories. In fact, the

overall SPIn scores indicate they are in the bottom list. The high performing schoolswere found to emphasis strongly on Measurement, Analysis and KnowledgeManagement and this made them more determined in achieving their vision andmission. So they were more focused and this eventually improved their overallperformance.

We trust if the schools performance indexes are made available through theMinistry of Educations web site, they would motivate the administrators to be morecautious of the school performance at all times. The school management can also makecomparison and track the schools strengths and weaknesses continuously. This wouldultimately result in a more proactive management in schools. The Ministry can alsoidentify struggling schools in various districts for further investigation to be carriedout so that it can be ensured that the government policies in providing quality

education to Malaysian citizen can be realized.Since schools can be divided to various categories in terms of characteristic, location

and funding, we acknowledge the limitation of the findings, which might not be able togeneralize to other schools and other countries. Future research should be conducted ona large scale basis to further refine the criteria so that the generic SPIn can becustomised according to the needs of the country and unique characteristics of theschools operation.

References

Baldridge National Quality Program Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (2007),available at: www.quality.nist.gov/About_BNQP.htm

Barnard, C.I. (1962),The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Boyne, G.A. and Chen, A.A. (2007), Performance targets and public service improvement,

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 455-78.

Brown, A. (2004), Implementing a system of performance management in Englands primaryschools , Conference Proceedings, Performance Measurement and Management: Publicand Private, 28-30 July, Edinburgh, UK.

Carnoy, M. and McEwan, P.J. (2001), Privatization through vouchers in developing countries:the cases of Chile and Columbia, in Levin, H.M. (Ed.), Privatizing Education: Can the

Marketplace Deliver Choice, Efficiency, Equity and Social Cohesion?, Westview Press,Boulder, CO, pp. 151-77.

Chubb, J. and Moe, T. (1990), Politics, Markets and American Schools, Brookings Institution,Washington, DC.

Davies, S. and Quirke, L. (2007), The impact of sector on school organizations: institutional andmarket logics, Sociology of Education, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 66-89.

Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A.J. and Vollmann, T.E. (1990),The New Performance Challenge MeasuringOperations for World-Class Competition, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Dronkers, J. (2004), Do public and religious school really differ? Assessing the Europeanevidence, in Wolf, P.J. and Macedo, S. (Eds),Educating Citizens: International Perspectiveson Civic Values and School Choice, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC,pp. 287-314.

IJEM23,6

520
http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fjopart%2Fmul007&isi=000247472300005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F003804070708000104&isi=000245195500004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fjopart%2Fmul007&isi=000247472300005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F003804070708000104&isi=000245195500004


18/20

Espeland, W. and Stevens, M. (2003), Peculiar symbols: the US news and world report rankingsof institutional quality, paper presented at the 97th annual meeting of the AmericanSociological Association, Chicago, IL.

Fiske, E.B. and Ladd, H.F. (2000), When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale, Brookings

Institution Press, Washington, DC.Gewirtz, S., Stephen, B. and Richard, B. (1995), Markets, Choice, and Equity in Education, Open

University Press, Buckingham.

Glad, I. (1998), An Identity Dilemma: A Comparative Study for Primary Education for EthnicChinese in the Context of National Identity and Nation-Building in Malaysia and Singapore,Scandinavian University Press, Olso and Cambridge, MA.

Gorard, S., Fitz, J. and Taylor, C. (2001), School choice impacts: what we do know, EducationalResearcher,Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 18-23.

Hirsch, D. (2002), School: a choice of directions, OECD working paper, available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/0/2755749.pdf

Jauchau, R. (2001), Culture, e-management and accounting, plenary paper presented to 4th

International Conference of the Journal of Accounting, Commerce and Finance: the IslamicPerspective, Palmerston North, 12-14 February.

Kalajainen, J. (2001), Effectively implementing a performance measurement system, TheAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants, July, available at: www.aicpa.org/pubs/cpaltr/sep2001/supps/audit4.htm

Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1992), Balance scorecard-measures that drive performance,HarvardBusiness Review, January/February, pp. 71-9.

Lee, N. (2006), Measuring the performance of public sector organisations: a case study on publicschools in Malaysia, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 50-64.

Mather, K., Worrall, L. and Seifert, R. (2007), Reforming further education: the changing labourprocess for college lecturers, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 109-27.

Moe, T.M. (2001), Schools, Vouchers, and the American Public, Brookings Institution Press,Washington, DC.

Naidoo, J.P. (2000), A review of school evaluation mechanisms in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal,Phillipines and Malaysia, in Meeting of the Asian Network of Training and ResearchInstitutions in Educational Planning (ANTRIEP) Report, Kuala Lumpur, July.

Neely, A. (1999), The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next?,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 205-28.

Otley, D. (1999), Performance management: a framework for management control systemsresearch, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 363-82.

Otley, D.T. and Berry, A.J. (1980), Control, organisation and accounting, AccountingOrganization and Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 231-44.

Ouchi, W.G. (2003), Making Schools Work: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Your Children theEducation They Need, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Ow, C.K.F., Willet, R.J. and Kim, L.Y. (2001), Building a knowledge-based business school,Education and Training, Vol. 43 Nos 4/5, pp. 268-74.

Owen, K., Mundy, T. and Guild, R. (2001), Creating and sustaining high performanceorganization,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 10-21.

Persell, C.H. (2000), Values, control, and outcomes in public and private schools, in Hallinan,M.T. (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Education, Kluwer Academic, New York, NY.

Schoolperformance

index

521
http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3102%2F0013189X030007018http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3102%2F0013189X030007018http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3102%2F0013189X030007018http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1992GY39500008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1992GY39500008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13683040610719272http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F00483480710716740&isi=000244660400006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579910247437&isi=000080754500007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fmare.1999.0115http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2880%2990012-4http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2880%2990012-4http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F00400910110399265http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09604520110362443http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3102%2F0013189X030007018http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3102%2F0013189X030007018http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fmare.1999.0115http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13683040610719272http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F00400910110399265http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F00483480710716740&isi=000244660400006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2880%2990012-4http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0361-3682%2880%2990012-4http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01443579910247437&isi=000080754500007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1992GY39500008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1992GY39500008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09604520110362443


19/20

Plank, D.N. and Sykes, G. (2003), Choosing Choice: School Choice in International Perspective,Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

Rompho, N. (2004), Building the balanced scorecard for the University. Case study: theUniversity in Thailand, Conference Proceedings, Performance Measurement and

Management: Public and Private, 28-30 July, Edinburgh, UK.Rowan, B. and Miskel, G. (1999), Institutional theory and the study of educational

organizations, in Murphy, J. and Seashore Louis, K. (Eds), Handbook of Research onEducational Administration, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Sarrico, C.S., Tice, J.H. and Rodrigues, C. (2004), Managing performance in a Portuguesesecondary school using the balanced scorecard, Conference Proceedings, Performance

Measurement and Management: Public and Private, 28-30 July, Edinburgh, UK.

Skinner, W. (1974), The decline, fall, and renewal of manufacturing, Industrial Engineering,October, pp. 32-8.

Somerset, J. (2004), Practical application of financial performance measures in the $A7 billionAustralian private school sector,Conference Proceedings, Performance Measurement and

Management: Public and Private, 28-30 July, Edinburgh, UK.

Wells, A.S. (2002), Why public policy fails to live up to the potential of charter school reform: anintroduction, in Wells, A.S. (Ed.), Where Charter School Policy Fails: The Problems of

Accountability and Equity, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-28.

Worrall, L., Parkes, C. and Cooper, C. (2004), The impact of organizational change on theexperiences and perceptions of UK managers from 1997-2000, European Journal of Workand Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 139-63.

Further reading

Davies, S. and Quirke, L. (2001), Teachers Unions and the public schools, in Moe, T.M. (Ed.),APrimer on Americas Schools, Hoover Institute Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 151-84.

DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1991), The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and

collective rationality in organizational fields, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P. (Eds),The New lnstitutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,IL, pp. 63-82.

Hoxby, C.M. (2003), The Economics of School Choice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Meier, D. (2000), Can the odds be changed? What will it take to make small schools ordinarypractice?, in Clinchy, E. (Ed.), Creating New Schools: How Small Schools Are Changing

American Education, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 183-90.

Plank, D. (2004), Understanding the demand for schooling, Organization for Education andCultural Development, available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/60/35393937.pdf

Wilson, S.F. (2006), Learning on the Job: When Business Takes on Public Schools, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.

IJEM23,6

522

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13594320444000047http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13594320444000047http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.7208%2Fchicago%2F9780226355344.001.0001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13594320444000047http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13594320444000047http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.7208%2Fchicago%2F9780226355344.001.0001


20/20

This article has been cited by:

1. Amilia Hasbullah, Wan Zahari Wan Yusoff, Maziah Ismail, Prima Vitasari. 2011. A framework study ofschool facilities performance in public primary school of Batubara district in Indonesia. Procedia - Socialand Behavioral Sciences15, 3708-3712. [CrossRef]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.360

Implementing School

Documents

Transcript of Implementing School