3. SURVEY OF TARGET SCHOOLS
3.1 Background
3.1.1 The schools surveyed
The survey monitored the following number of schools in each district:
|
|
Batang
|
Pati
|
Pacitan
|
Probolinggo
|
Banyuwangi
|
Total
|
|
SD
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
15
|
|
MI
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
-
|
1
|
5
|
|
SMP
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
12
|
|
MTs
|
1
|
-
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
|
Total
|
7
|
6
|
9
|
7
|
7
|
36
|
The names of the schools surveyed and basic school data are included in Appendix 3.
3.1.2 Indicators
1. List of Indicators
The surveys focused on a number of indicators which are expected to show clear change after training activities take place. They include:
1. School Based Management
- Comprehensive school plans are made by school staffs and communities working together, displayed publicly, updated annually and are implemented
- Integrated school budgets and expenditure are made and displayed publicly
- School and cluster meetings are held regularly, are well attended and have an impact on class teaching
- There is a significant increase in direct funding to schools by districts
2. Teaching and Learning
- Children's work is written using their own words
- More practical work takes place (e.g. in science), including use of the social and natural environment
- Classrooms have displays of children's work and teaching aids
- Teachers use flexible working groups in their teaching
- Children express their feelings and opinions freely within the classroom
- A variety of assessment are used and feedback is given to pupils to improve performance
- Book corners/school libraries are created and used
3. Community Participation/School Committees
- Communities participate in
- developing school plans and monitoring their implementation
- improving the school environment
- supporting the children's learning
- giving increased material support for schools (money or in kind)
A number of the indicators are illustrated in pictorial form in Appendix 2.
|
3.1.3 The Data Collection
During the visits to schools the consultants were generally accompanied by a pengawas or another member of local Dinas Pendidikan and/or MORA staff. The consultants used the instruments attached in Appendix 7 to gather data. Activities during the visits included:
- Discussions and interviews with the school principal, members of school committees where they were present and teachers;
- Observation of school facilities including libraries and laboratories, where these existed;
- Observation of classrooms and classroom activities.
Because of the proximity of 17 August celebrations the consultants were unable to observe lessons taking place in several schools Problinggo and Pati. However, the evidence from the layout of the classrooms in these schools, the wall displays and the children's work viewed led the consultants to believe that the teaching was similar to that of the schools where it could be observed.
|
3.2 The Findings
The districts and schools selected to take part in the program have generally not received much assistance in developing the quality of their schools. The exception to this is in Problinggo, where primary schools in a number of sub-districts have received assistance and training from the CLCC program and are implementing a degree of school based management, are showing increased community participation and improved teaching and learning as set out in the indicators above. In other districts and in schools untouched by the CLCC program in Probolinggo, there is generally little to report according to these indicators, at this baseline data stage. It is hoped (and expected) that by this time next year (August 2004) most of the schools receiving assistance from the MBE program will be showing significant progress on many or all of the indicators.
3.2.1 School Based Management
In most schools surveyed their concept of planning was confined to short term routine ad hoc planning to cover needs as they arise. Most junior secondary schools had plans, but most primary schools did not. In the case of secondary schools it was considered that they are better at drawing up plans as a result of practices prior to decentralisation, when they had to draw up proposals in order to obtain funding.
The planning that was done included planning of items such as school events, repairs and maintenance and materials and book purchases. In most cases the principal, teachers and members of the school committee were involved. None of the schools are yet implementing strategic planning to determine the overall development of the school. None of the schools displayed their planning openly or communicated it to parents in other ways.
Staff meetings of principals and teacher take place in all schools, typically on a monthly basis and are generally used to discuss administrative matters, the school's program of activities and problems arising in classes, including teaching. The meetings do not generally form part of a larger plan to change the strategic direction of the school. Most principals do not undertake monitoring and supervision to class.
Most of the schools had a recorded budget (RAPBS). Generally the principal, teachers and members of the school committee were involved in drawing up this budget, but in most cases the budget was confined to funds raised by the school committee. There appears to be no standard way of presenting budgets or of what needs to appear in the budgets. Book keeping in primary schools was especially poor. It was often the work of the principal alone, whereas staff were employed for the task in most junior secondary schools.
Other funds, especially those received from local government (APBD) appeared in most schools to be off-budget. In many schools there was a reluctance to reveal what funds were being received from local government, and the consultants gained the impression in some schools that the information they were given did not reveal the whole truth. This is not surprising given the irregular payments, which many schools reportedly have to make.
The school budget was not openly displayed in any of the schools surveyed. In some schools the budgets were in deficit and funds had been borrowed from the pupils' saving schemes of even one school principal had lent his own money. In one school a budget of Rp. 800,000 for purchasing books from APBD funds was included in the RAPBS, but the only books visible in any of the classrooms were many years old and were disintegrating.
1. School Funding
(a) Funds received
The consultants collected data from schools surveyed on funds they received during the school year 2002-3 and how these funds were spent. Table 8 below is based on data from 16 primary and 10 junior secondary schools. It will be updated as data from other schools is received and processed.
School funding was received mainly from three sources: the national budget (APBN ), the district budget (APBD) and from parents (BP3 or school committee). Small amounts of funding came from foundation, particularly in the case of private schools.
Table 8: Average funding per pupil from different sources
|
|
National
Budget (APBN)
|
District
(APBD)
|
Parents
(BP3/School Committee)
|
Foundation
|
Total
|
|
Primary
(SD/MI)
|
47,770
|
10,799
|
91,560
|
405
|
150,534
|
|
|
31.7%
|
7.2%
|
60.8%
|
0.3%
|
100%
|
|
Junior
Secondary (SMP/MTs
|
138,633
|
42,115
|
107,530
|
-
|
288,279
|
|
|
48.1%
|
14.6%
|
37.3%
|
0.0%
|
100.0%
|
|
From table 8 we can also see that:
Overall funds received by junior secondary schools was almost twice as much per pupil as for primary schools. This is clearly inequitable.
Funding for junior secondary schools from districts (APBD) was four times as great much per pupil as funding for primary schools.
The funding of Rp.10,799 for primary school pupils is derisory and reflects a low priority given to improving the quality of education
APBN funding was generally in the form of substantial one-off grants to support physical improvements, including school renovation and minor building works and school improvement programs. Funding per pupil through these grants by junior secondary schools was three times as large as that received by primary schools, while the data on the condition of schools (see table 7 in section 2.2.1) shows clearly that the condition of primary schools is much worse than junior secondary schools.
APBD funding was generally in the form of transfers of funds to support operational expenses.
|
6 This also includes funds received from the province
|
