Table 2.1: Details of School Committees in 5 MBE districts

      The selection of people with a post school education onto the school committee depended on the locality of the school. Those in more urban areas were more likely to have 1-2 people with a first degree qualification. Some schools had 6-8 graduates, of which some were school staff. One school had 3 medical doctors. Only one third of the incumbents in each of the 3 executive positions had a first or higher degree. The respect and experience that comes with age seemed to be valued. Most school committees had a majority of personnel aged over 35 years, although all school committees in Batang and Pacitan had a majority of younger persons. Interestingly, 7 treasurers were younger people, below 35 years.

      The benefits of members having previous experience of working with the school as a member of BP3 or other similar experience have yet to be exploited. While some school committees have a high number of ex-BP3 as members (8-9) - in some cases they were transferred on bloc from BP3 to the school committee, others had no one with this experience. A similar situation was reported in the executive too, less than half of school committee heads and treasurers (40%) and only ¼ of secretaries had some previous experience. This could be a reporting problem. The history of executive members is more likely to be known to the interviewee (head of school committee) than that of all committee members. The executive seemed to be selected not because of this kind of useful experience but because they provide other tangible benefits and skills for the school, such as leadership, potential access to funds or donations, local stature. Examples of such persons included local government representative (DPRD), Village Head, business people (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Members of School Committees with Selected Criteria in 5 MBE Districts (N=30)

      A further major criteria for selection on to the executive, as well as for selecting members in general, was their strong vested interest in improving the school which their own child attends. Two-thirds of heads, 56% of secretaries and half the treasurers had one or more children in the school on whose school committee they sit. Every school committee sampled had at least one person with a child in the same school. In many cases, the number was higher. The selection of such persons on to the school committee and especially on to the executive is first, some guarantee that the best efforts would be made by the school committee for the school. Other possible vested interests such as potential business opportunities, could be sidelined. Second, the selection (and legitimising) of their high numbers into positions of influence (ie. on to the executive) would be easier as parents would know, or know of, each other from BP3 meetings, school visits to collect pupil report cards and other incidental school activities.

      It will be interesting to see how many school committee members become non-active (or resign) once their child moves on to SLTP schooling. [This is a possible item for MBE progress monitoring.] Some school committees had received their legalising document from the school principal. These were of varying length and detail. Some of these documents were still in the process of being developed, especially for those school committees newly set up in academic year 2003-04. Probolinggo has a plan to develop its own guidelines for establishing school committee. Meanwhile, information from the MONE decree provides the sole source of information. Of the examples of legalising documents for school committees seen, two include the term of office set at 3 and 4 years, while another allows for the substitution of non-performing (?) personnel.

Back

Home

Next