by: the team of lppm-ipb: · web viewprogress in achieving mdg basic education targets in indonesia...
TRANSCRIPT
BY: THE TEAM OF LPPM-IPB:
Herien Puspitawati (Coordinator)Hartoyo
Ma’mun SarmaMelly LatifahTin Herawati
COOPERATION BETWEENBOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY &
PRMAP-ADB-BAPPENASJuly 1, 2009
LIST OF CONTENT Pages
LIST OF CONTENT ............................................................................................ iiLIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. iiiLIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................... iv
Part I: Parent Satisfaction Survey ....................................................................... 11.1. Background....................................................................................... 11.2. Scope of the Survey........................................................................... 11.3. Objectives of the Survey................................................................... 21.4. Approach and Methodology............................................................. 2
Part II: Research Findings..................................................................................... 42.1. Equitable Access............................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Availability of Children’s School Costs................................. 5 2.1.2. Maintenance of Discipline and School Safety ..................... 102.2. Quality and Relevance....................................................................... 10 2.2.1. Quality of Teaching and Learning Process............................ 10 2.2.2. Results of Learning Process on the Quality of Students....... 11 2.2.3. Comfortability of School Condition for Students................. 11 2.2.4. Physical School Facilities....................................................... 12 2.2.5. Readiness of Children to Transfer to The Next Year ........... 132.3. Good Governance and Public Accountability................................... 13 2.3.1. Participation of Parents ....................................................... 13 2.3.2. Drop-Out Children................................................................ 15
Part III: Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................... 16
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 19APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 20
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 1. Parents Satisfaction Rate of Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services at Elementary School (%)........................................ 4
Figure 2. Parents Satisfaction Rate of Nine attributes of Basic Education Services at Junior Secondary School (%)............................... 5
Figure 3. Average Monthly Income per Capita and Education Expenses at Elementary School by Socioeconomic Group..................... 6
Figure 4. Average Monthly Income per Capita and Education Expenses at Junior Secondary School by Socioeconomic Group............ 7
Figure 5. Poor and Non-Poor Parents Satisfaction Rates of Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services at Elementary School................................. 8
Figure 6. Poor and Non-Poor Parents Satisfaction Rates of Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services at Junior Secondary School........................ 8
Figure 7. Parents Satisfaction Rates of Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services Who Live Close to and Far from District Education
Office at Elementary School.................................................................... 8Figure 8. Parents Satisfaction Rates of Nine Attributes of Basic Education
Services Who Live Close to and Far from District Education Office at Junior Secondary School.......................................................... 9
Figure 9. Annual Cost of Basic Education for Elementary and Junior Secondary Schools(in detailed in Appendix 7) ......................................................... 15
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1. Summary of Parents Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services............................................................. 21
Appendix 2. Summary of Principals Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services............................................................. 22
Appendix 3. Summary of School Committee Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services............................................ 23
Appendix 4. The Difference Test of Parents Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services Between Poor and Non Poor Families............................................................................................ 24
Appendix 5. The Difference Test of Parents Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services Between Closed to and Far from Education District Office.............................................. 25
Appendix 6. The Average of Yearly Basic Education Expenses (n=60) ............ 26Appendix 7. The Average of Yearly Basic Education Expenses (n=60) ............ 27Appendix 8. The reason of Children Drop – Out from School............................. 28Appendix 9. Instrument of Parents Satisfaction Survey Toward Basic Education
Services............................................................................................ 29Appendix 10. Matrix of Research Findings, and Recommendations of
Improving Basic Education Services for District Government of Indramayu..................................................................................
iv
Part I: Parent Satisfaction Survey
1.1. Background
1. The present economic crisis in Indonesia is still affecting many aspects of development, including educational aspects. The emergence of poverty since 1997 has become the major issues for government policies and has been considered as a major threat to the MDGs, especially the goals related to educational aspects. In the MDGs, it is noted that Goal 3 is to ensure that by 2015, boys and girls will be able to complete the primary school. Then, Goal 4 is to eliminate the gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and at all levels of education no later than 2015 (Bappenas, 2007a).
2. Progress in achieving MDG basic education targets in Indonesia includes the current national Net Enrolment Rate (NER) for elementary level which stands at 94.7 percent. The proportion of student graduates from elementary school is 74.7 percent and keeps increasing as follows the target. However, the Net Enrolment Rate of junior secondary level is 66.5 percent, which is below target and increasing slowly. The ratio of female students at elementary level is 100 percent and at junior secondary level it is 99.4 percent, hence Indonesia has almost achieved the gender parity target for basic education.
3. The Government of Indonesia is committed to ensuring greater transparency of education outcomes to enhance accountability. A national policy objective is to continue to obtain feedback from parents and communities on both the positive and negative aspects of basic education service delivery through surveys and other mechanisms. The feedback from parents and community are needed for increasing the quality of the education system. The Parent Satisfaction Survey (PSS) is a tool for district education agencies to obtain systematic feedback from users of basic education services, the results of which can assist in planning resources for increasing quality of basic education services.
1.2. Scope of the Survey4. The Parent Satisfaction Survey (PSS) evaluated parent perceptions of satisfaction relating to access (financial and physical) and quality of basic education services in 4 sub-districts in Indramayu, West Java. The data was used to inform the district of dimensions of basic education service delivery that need to be assessed for further strengthening, related to achieving MDG Targets 2 and 3. The scope of the PSS covered parents of students in the government’s decentralized basic education system, elementary schools (SDs) and junior secondary schools (SMPs) grades 6 and 9, principals and school committee members.
1
5. The survey also included parents of currently school age1 children who dropped out of basic education during the transition from elementary to junior secondary level and/or drop outs from the junior secondary level2. The age limits were introduced in order to capture parental satisfaction with current conditions in basic education rather than past parental satisfaction. The age limits are also important because they limit the survey universe to children who are still eligible to return to school and, thus, parents whose decisions affect enrolment rates. Non formal program students such as Paket A and B were excluded.
1.3. Objectives of the Survey. 6. The Objectives of the Parents Satisfaction Survey were to: (1) Measure the parents’ levels of satisfaction related to different dimensions of basic education services3 for both primary and junior secondary schools, (2) measure the levels of satisfaction of school committee members and principals concerning basic education services provision for both elementary and junior secondary schools by using the methods of Importance and Performance Analysis (IPA) and Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI), (3) analyze the opinions among parents, principals and school committee concerning education financing, and (4) describe the reasons given by parents for drop-out of their children from basic education.
7. The survey was gender mainstreamed by ensuring that perceptions of both male and female parents of students were obtained. These subgroups were selected using stratified sampling techniques and were interviewed separately where possible. Analysis of data highlighted any differences in perception based on gender.
1.4. Approach and Methodology8. The sampling unit consisted of primary and secondary service providers. For the secondary sampling unit (the school) the respondents were the principal (or other academic staff, if the principal was new) and chairperson of school committee, while for the primary sampling unit the respondents were parents of selected students with the
recommended total of 400 parents (10 parents for each school were selected based on socio-economic status, level of students’ achievements, students with negative attitudes 1 The scope will exclude drop outs and non transitioners who are older than the normal age for that level of school.2 The absolute number of children who never enroll or drop out of primary level is very small except in certain remote districts which will not be included in the PSS.3 See Appendix 1 for attributes included in survey
2
towards school and single parent families). The schools were selected based on available data and stratified sampling. A total of 40 parents (one father and/or one mother) whose children have dropped out were selected as respondents.
9. Data was collected through a variety of methods including desk study (for collecting secondary data and information), survey with semi-structured and structured questionnaire (by visiting respondents at home in order to maintain objective answers), and focus group discussion. Since some of the information items were in the form of open ended questions, a coding operation was applied so that the data could be tabulated in an easily accessible format using MS Excel and SPSS software. In the development of the “Parent Satisfaction Index”, the analysis utilized the use of Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) (Rangkuti, 1997 and Umar, 2001) which identifies the level of importance and the level of satisfaction of customers toward products or services.
Part II: Research Findings
3
2.1. Equitable Access10. Parents satisfaction : The results show that in general the parents satisfaction rate toward quality of basic education services is between less satisfied and satisfied. Based on parents opinion, the basic education services at elementary and junior secondary school are relatively the same. Figures 1 and 2 present the percentage of parents satisfaction rate toward nine attributes of basic education services at elementary and junior secondary schools (see Appendix 1). The survey findings reveal that just over 50 percent of parents interviewed feel satisfied with eight attributes of basic education services, with the exception of availability of school financing, for which over 70 percent of parents voiced less satisfied.
Figure 1. Parents Satisfaction Rate of Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services at Elementary School (%).
Note: LS= Less Satisfied; S= SatisfiedA1= Quality of Learning Process; A2= Quality of Teaching; A3= Results of Learning Process on the quality of students; A4= Comfortability of School Condition for students; A5= Maintenance of Discipline and School Safety; A6= Participation of Parents; A7= Quality of Physical Facilties; A8= Readiness of Transfer Year; A9= The Availability of Children’s School Costs.
Figure 2. Parents Satisfaction Rate of Nine attributes of Basic
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
LSS
4
Education Services at Junior Secondary School (%).
Note: LS= Less Satisfied; S= SatisfiedA1= Quality of Learning Process; A2= Quality of Teaching; A3= Results of Learning Process on the quality of students; A4= Comfortability of School Condition for students; A5= Maintenance of Discipline and School Safety; A6= Participation of Parents; A7= Quality of Physical Facilties; A8= Readiness of Transfer Year; A9= The Availability of Children’s School Costs.
2.1.1 Availability of Children’s School Costs
11. The attribute of ‘availability of children’s school costs’ refers to the availability of education funding. This includes government funding including school operational expenses (“BOS”),, books expenses (“BOS Buku”), stationery school expenses, and costs borne by parents such as transportation, textbooks and students exercise sheets, school uniform and pocket money at school. The findings show that 31 percent of parents interviewed from both elementary and junior secondary schools feel satisfied with the availability of children’s school costs, while over 69 percent of parents feel less satisfied or not satisfied. This indicates that school expenses are still a significant economic pressure and major burden for most families. There is an ongoing intensive media campaign of “free school” for basic education promoted by local government in Indramayu, which causes confusion among parents, many of whom still have to spend a relatively large proportion of income on travel expenses, textbooks, student working sheets and school uniforms. Financial constraints, especially among lower income families with more than one child, are a barrier to access to 9 years of basic education.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
LSS
5
12. Figures 3 and 4 present the difference between average monthly income per capita and average individual education expenses at elementary and junior secondary schools. It shows that ‘poor’ families (defined as living on or below the poverty line) have to pay education expenses which amount to more than their average monthly per capita income. But ‘almost poor’ families (defined as living just above the poverty line) have to pay education expenses which amount to almost the same as their average monthly per capita income. In contrast middle upper families have to pay education expenses which are lower than their average monthly per capita income. These findings indicate that poor and almost poor cannot afford the costs of education for one child, let alone if they have more children. It also highlights that the costs of education is far more expensive for poor families compared to upper income families.
Figure 3. Average Monthly Income per Capita and Education Expenses at Elementary School by Socioeconomic Group.
Notes: ‘Poor’ family is the family whose monthly per capita income less than or equal to Rp 176 216 (Poverty Line for West Java Province at 2008); “Almost Poor’family is the family whose monthly per capita income between Rp 176 216 – 352 432; and ‘Middle-Upper’ family is the family whose monthly per capita income larger than Rp Rp 352 432.
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
Poor (<PL) Almost Poor (1 PL-2PL) Middle Upper (>2PL)
Income Expenditure
491292
733674
252257233333
121153
6
Figure 4. Average Monthly Income per Capita and Education Expenses at Junior Secondary School by Socioeconomic Group.
13. The average score of parents satisfaction rate toward basic education services in private elementary schools is higher than that of state elementary schools. However, the average score of parents satisfaction rate toward basic education services in state junior secondary schools is higher than that of private junior secondary schools. The reason for this can be attributed to factors relating to the differing quality of physical facilities, quality of learning process and teaching.
14. The average score of parents satisfaction rate towards basic education services from non-poor parents is higher than that of poor parents (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix 4), and the average score of satisfaction rate towards basic education service from parents living in Sub Districts closer to the education District Office is higher than parents of Sub Districts further from the education District Office (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix 5). The reason for this can be attributed to factors relating to the differing quality of physical facilities, quality of learning process and teaching. The responses of satisfaction levels towards the basic education service from mothers are slightly higher compared to fathers. Parents of a male or female child reported the same rate of satisfaction toward basic education services
15. The survey findings reveal that non-poor families have a higher satisfaction rate than poor families relating to the availability of children’s school costs (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix 4) both at elementary and secondary schools. Families at sub-districts close to District Education Office for both elementary and junior secondary school have higher satisfaction rate of the availability children’s school costs than that of schools far from District Education Office (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix 5).
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
Poor (<PL) Almost Poor (1 PL-2PL) Middle Upper (>2PL)
Income Expenditure
135671
527861
650833
255990246890
7
Figure 5. Poor and Non-Poor Parents Satisfaction Rates of Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services at Elementary School.
Figure 6. Poor and Non-Poor Parents Satisfaction Rates of Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services at Junior Secondary School.
Figure 7. Parents Satisfaction Rates of Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services Who Live Close to and Far from District Education Office at Elementary School.
0
1
2
3
4
5
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
Poor Non-Poor
0
1
2
3
4
5
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
Poor Non-Poor
8
Figure 8. Parents Satisfaction Rates of Nine Attributes of Basic Education
Services Who Live Close to and Far from District Education Office at Junior Secondary School.
16. The results reveal that 30 percent of school principals and 29 percent of school committees responded they were satisfied with the availability of children’s school costs, while 70 percent of principals and 71 percent of school committee responded they were less satisfied or not satisfied (Appendix 2 and 3). The average score of principal satisfaction rate toward basic education services in elementary schools is lower than that of junior secondary schools. The reason for this can be attributed to the quality of physical facilities, quality of learning process, and quality of teaching factors. Furthermore, it is known that the level of school principals’ satisfaction towards all the attributes of education services is higher than the satisfaction of school committees and parents.
17. The attribute that was given a lower score by the principals of both elementary and junior secondary schools is the availability of school financing. Principals, school committees and the Education Board reported that budget constraints for operational/ managerial expenses are faced by all schools. These budget constraints were reported more by principals of junior secondary schools to be a particular concern compared to elementary school principals. The principals of private schools also reported budget constraints more than state school principals. These operational budget constraints were reported to influence the availability and quality of basic education services, especially physical infrastructures, learning medias, library and school management resources. The
012345
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
Close Far
012345
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
Close Far
9
main reasons given for dissatisfaction with BOS, as reported by principals, is due to the insufficiency of the school operational budget to cover all basic education services, including the development of infrastructures. Because of the “BOS” fund from the central government, there is a regulation that forbids schools to request funding from parents. Principals from private schools also highlighted the additional constraint of private schools only receiving “BOS” funding once every three months, which causes operational constraints.
10
2.1.2. Maintenance of Discipline and School Safety
18. The survey findings reveal that over 62 percent of parents interviewed feel satisfied with the attributes of maintenance of discipline and school safety, compared to over 38 percent of parents who were less satisfied or not satisfied. For elementary schools there was a slightly higher rate of satisfaction among poor parents compared to non-poor parents, while for junior secondary schools the satisfaction rate was higher for non-poor parents. Parents who are not satisfied or less satisfied view that schools are not child-friendly or conducive to learning. Parents responded that they would like schools to be safe places for studying where all students are treated equally and teachers do not hit children. The parents of schools close to the District Education Office for both elementary and junior secondary school have a higher satisfaction rate for maintenance of discipline and school safety than parents of schools far from District Education Office. The average score of satisfaction rate towards discipline and school safety at elementary schools is lower than that of junior secondary schools. For the attribute of maintenance of discipline and school safety, it shows that non-poor parents have a higher satisfation rate than poor parents (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix 4) both at elementary and junior secondary schools, while families living in Sub Districts close to the District Education Office have a higher satisfaction rate than parents living in Sub Districts far from the Education District Office (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix 5).
19. The results reveal that 63 percent of school principals and 55 percent of school committees responded they were satisfied with the maintenance of discipline and school safety, compared to 37 percent of principals and 45 percent of school committees who responded that they were less satisfied or not satisfied. The reason for this can be attributed the monitoring and evaluation of learning process and the quality of teaching factors.
2.2. Quality and Relevance
2.2.1. Quality of Teaching and Learning Process
20. The survey findings indicate that the quality of the teaching and learning process on the quality of students do not meet the demands of 50 percent of parents of elementary school students and 46 percent of parents of junior secondary students, all of whom expressed they were less satisfied or not satisfied.
21. Teaching quality is also a related issue with almost 40 percent of parents of elementary students compared to 31 percent of parents of junior secondary students expressing levels of dissatisfaction with the quality of teaching and learning process. Non-poor parents have higher satisfaction rates than poor parents (Figure 5 and 6, Appendix 4) at junior secondary schools, while parents living in Sub Districts close to
11
the District Education Office have a higher satisfaction rate than parents living in Sub Districts further from the District Education Office (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix 5).
22. The results reveal that 58 percent of school principals and 61 percent of school committees reported they were satisfied with the quality of teaching, for which 43 percent of principals and 39 percent of school committee voiced they were less satisfied. Moreover, the results also reveal that 53 percents of school principals and 55 percent of school committees reported satisfied with the quality of learning process, for which 47 percent of principals and 45 percent of school committees voiced they were less satisfied. The reason for this can be attributed to the availability of school financing and the level of teachers’ skills.
2.2.2. Results of Learning Process on the Quality of Students
23. The survey findings indicate that the results of the learning process on the quality of students do not meet the demands of 50 percent of parents of elementary school students and 46 percent of parents of junior secondary students, all of whom expressed they were less satisfied or not satisfied.
24. For the findings of the attribute of results of learning process on the quality of students, it shows that non-poor parents have higher satisfation rates than poor parents (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix 4) both at elementary and secondary schools, while parents living in Sub Districts close to the District Education Office have higher satisfaction rates than parents living in Sub Districts far from the District Education Office at junior secondary schools (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix 5). It means that parents living in urban sub-districts are more satisfied in the results of the learning process than parents living in rural areas. However, there is no significant difference of parents satisfaction toward results of learning process among elementary schools.
25. The results reveal that 50 percent of school principals and 55 percent of school committees reported they were satisfied with the results of learning process on the quality of students, compared to 50 percent of principals and 45 percent of school committee who responded that they were less satisfied or not satisfied. The reason for this can be attributed to the availability of school financing, the level of teachers’ skills, the quality of physical facilities and quality of teaching and learning process.
2.2.3. Comfortability of School Condition for Students
26. The survey findings indicate that the comfortability (or adequacy) of school conditions for students do not meet the demands of 38 percent of parents of elementary school students and 45 percent of parents of junior secondary students, all of whom expressed they were less satisfied or not satisfied. Moreover the the comfortability of
12
school conditions for students at elementary schools are relatively higher compared to junior secondary schools.
27. For the attribute of the comfortability of school conditions for students, the findings show that non-poor parents have a higher satisfaction rate than poor parents (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix 4) at secondary schools, while parents living in sub districts close to the District Education Office have a higher satisfaction rate compared to parents living in sub districts far from the District Education Office at junior secondary schools (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix 5).
28. The results reveal that 57 percent of school principals and 61 percent of school committees responded they were satisfied with the comfortability of school condition for students, compared to 43 percent of principals and 39 percent of school committee who voiced they were less satisfied or not satisfied. The reason for this can be attributed to the availability of school financing, the quality of physical facilities, quality of learning process, and quality of teaching factors.
2.2.4. Physical School Facilities
29. The quality of physical infrastructure/ facilities also does not appear to meet the demands of nearly half of parents with 48 percent of elementary parents expressing dissatisfaction compared to 47 percent of parents of junior secondary students.
30. These findings indicate that parents of junior secondary students are more satisfied with the quality of physical infrastructure/ facilities than the parents of primary students. See Table in Appendix 1 for detailed satisfaction ratings of parents by each attribute. The rate of parent satisfaction towards quality of physical facilities at elementary schools are relatively higher than that at junior secondary schools.
31. For the attribute of the quality of physical infrastructure/facilities, it shows that non-poor families have higher satisfation rate than poor families (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix 4) at secondary schools, while parents living at sub districts close to the District Education Office have similar satisfaction rate than that of sub districts far from the District Education Office (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix 5).
32. The results reveal that 45 percent of school principals and 55 percent of school committee reported they were satisfied with the physical school facilities, compared to 55 percent of principals and 45 percent of school committee who voiced they were less satisfied or not satisfied. The reason for this can be attributed to the availability of school financing, and the degree of community participation.
13
2.2.5. Readiness of Children to Transfer to The Next Year
33. The survey findings indicate that the readiness children to transfer to the next year does not meet the demands of 48 percent of parents of elementary school students and 41 percent of parents of junior secondary students, all of whom expressed they were less satisfied or not satisfied.
34. Non-poor parents have a higher satisfaction rate than poor parents concerning the readiness of their children to transition to the next year (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix 4) at junior secondary schools, while parents living in sub districts close to the District Education Office have higher satisfaction rate than parents living in sub districts far from the District Education Office at junior secondary schools (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix 5).
35. Students of junior secondary schools in sub-districts close to the District Education Office are more likely to be ready in the transition year and be able to proceed to senior high school than students at sub-districts far from the District Education Office. The economic status of parents is relatively higher in sub-districts close to the District Education Office than in sub-districts far from to the District Education Office. For this reason, the graduates of the junior secondary schools in sub-districts close to the District Education Office are more ready in the transitional year to continue to the senior high school than those in sub-districts far from the District Education Office.
36. The results reveal that 58 percent of school principals and 45 percent of school committees reported they were satisfied with the readiness of children to transfer to the next year, compared to 42 percent of principals and 55 percent of school committee voiced less satisfied. The reasons for this can be attributed to the availability of school financing, the motivation of children and parents toward basic education, and the different expectations and values of basic education.
2.3. Good Governance and Public Accountability
2.3.1. Participation of Parents
37. The attribute of participation of parents relates to the efforts of school in communicating with parents by supplying useful information regarding their children’s academic progress. The survey findings indicate that 53 percent of parents of elementary school students and 45 percent of parents of junior secondary students expressed they were less satisfied or not satisfied.
38. For the attribute of participation of parents, findings show that non-poor parents have a higher satisfaction rate than poor parents (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix 4) at junior secondary schools, while parents living in sub districts close to the District Education
14
Office have a higher satisfaction rate compared to parents living in sub districts far from the District Education Office for junior secondary schools (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix 5). This indicates participation of parents at junior secondary schools is higher than that at elementary schools.
39. The results reveal that 63 percent of school principals and 47 percent of school committees were satisfied with participation of parents, compared to 37 percent of principals and 53 percent of school committee responded they were less satisfied or not satisfied. The reason for this can be attributed to the the effect of ”free school” program that has made parents unwilling to contribute to the school budgets. The concept of free school is viewed by most school principals and school committees as an incorrect idea because the parents no longer want to participate in the financing of educational programs as they did in the past before the introduction of free schools. The mindset of the community concerning formal education becomes “take it for granted”, there is no maximum effort from the parents for their children educational needs (even some parents request the government to provide their children with all educational and personal expenses). In addition, the introduction of the aid called ‘school operational cost’ (BOS) has made the schools unable to charge school fees from the parents although such financial aid is not enough for the operational cost of education, let alone the construction of school facilities. This is particularly a dilemma for private schools which cannot get the government aid other than the school operational cost. Moreover, according to the private schools’ principals, their schools receive the school operational cost once every three months, thus making it more difficult for them to operate the schools.
40. Findings show general agreement among principals, school committee, and parents concerning the purpose of basic education, which is viewed as a child’s right and as the key of his/her independence (autonomy) as a human being. However, some parents, principals, and school committee members perceive the purpose of obtaining a basic education is to enable a child to earn an income and that male children should therefore be prioritized in formal education more than female children. These negative perceptions of basic education, appear to affect the motivation of parents to send their children to junior secondary school or senior high school, especially for lower income families. Parents voiced their concerns that after graduating from elementary or junior secondary school, their children were unemployed and a basic education does not increase employment opportunities for their children.
41. Data on the total educational expenses per child (collected during interviews with 60 parents) shows that average yearly educational expenses for every child at elementary school is Rp 3 010 453.90 or Rp 250 871.16 per month, and at junior secondary school is Rp 3 175 582.10 or Rp 264 631.84. For a detailed breakdown of school costs refer to Figure 9 and Appendix 6 and 7.
15
Figure 9. Annual Cost of Basic Education for Elementary and Junior Secondary Schools(in detailed in Appendix 7).
2.3.2. Drop-Out Children
42. Interviews were held with 40 parents of children who have dropped out of school. The reasons given for drop-out from school are due to economic and non-economic reasons. The major economic reason is lack of affordability according to 73 percent of parent responses. Other reasons given by parents include school expenses increased, have to make a living, parents are jobless, harvest failed/stagnant income source, younger brothers/sisters joining the schools (parents cannot afford to send all children to school), transportation cost increased, and could not afford to buy the school uniforms. The major non-economic reason given is the lack of student motivation for studying, according to 70 percent of parents. The reasons for lack of motivation were not given but it could be attributed to lack of access and quality issues. Other factors reported by parents include laziness towards studying, the long distance between school and home that relate to the safety issues, illness of child and not recovered, feeling adequate education, family problems, being afraid of/ teased/ ignored by friends, illness/ accident of parents, handicapped, and misbehavior of children (see Appendix 8).
330381.19
1035592.30
212656.25152306.80
283293.75318477.27
165812.50145970.45
638312.50
182772.73
1617437.50
2091522.70
0.00
500000.00
1000000.00
1500000.00
2000000.00
2500000.00
Rup
iah
(Rp)
School Fees School Uniform Stationary and Other Bag and Shoes Tutorials Transporation &School Allowence
The Average of Yearly Basic Education
ElementaryJunior Secondary
16
Part III: Conclusions and Recommendations
43. In conclusion the findings of the survey indicate there are a number of challenges and strategic options to address these challenges in basic education in Indramayu district, particularly in poor and underserved communities as follows:
44. Challenges and Strategic Options:
Challenge 1: To increase equitable access through the availability of children’s school costs by reducing the costs of education to poor parents, especially the contribution of BOS, “BOS buku”, and stationery school expenses. Consider other innovative options such as i) reducing the number of school uniforms required from 5 types to one type; ii) expand provision of scholarships for poor students at elementary and junior secondary levels; and iii) implement a targeted advocacy campaign of the benefits of 9 years basic education.
Challenge 2: To Promote child-friendly schools to increase the comfortability of school conditions for children, to increase readiness of children to transfer to the next year and to contribute to reducing drop-out. Options to be considered include promoting the maintenance of discipline, respect for others and good manners; school safety by the use of positive discipline instead of corporal punishment (hitting); develop and implement school anti-bullying policy; treat all students equally and ensure teachers act immediately and appropriately if there is a problem; implement student-centred learning.
Challenge 3: To accelerate the quality of teaching and learning process, and increase the results of learning process on the quality of students. Options that can be considered are: i) accelerate training provision for in-service teachers in all schools in best practice teaching methods e.g. PAKEM &/or CTL to enable interesting activities, learning to be better understood, teachers to be motivated, teachers to give increased support to students, and ii) accelerate teacher certification to increase the number of teachers holding a D3 (Diploma 3 Years) -S1 (Undergraduate Degree); and iii) stronger focus on curricululm enhancement and provision of adequate textbooks.
Challenge 4: To provide improved quality school facilities prioritizing schools where the need is greatest e.g. toilets, tables/chairs, school library and sports equipment which meet government’s minimum service standards
Challenge 5: To promote good governance and public accountability through: i) Increasing access to information by the community through public display of school information e.g. school budget, etc for increased transparency and ii) conduct parent/teacher meetings throughout the school year to provide parents with
17
information on their children’s academic progress; iii) strengthen the role of the school committee to encourage parents to be more actively involved in planning and decision-making of school resources and expenditures, and iv) ensure all schools (including private schools) receive BOS funding monthly to enable efficiency in school operations.
Recommendations for Replication of the Parents Satisfaction Survey
Recommendations for survey replication at other locations are as follows (Appendix 9 and 10):
45. The Planning Stage: At the planning stage, District Government needs to appoint an independent
survey team (such as School Board cooperating with university and/or NGOs and community) to implement survey of parents satisfaction toward basic education services at the local district. The survey management needs to be run by a team of professionals who have adequate experience of survey in education and social aspects.
The training of enumerators is the next step. Enumerators are selected based on experience and the ability to conduct interviews and understood subject matter. Enumerators will become independent surveyors in the field.
Budget for parents satisfaction survey will be provided by local government as the proof of increasing their commitment toward transparancies and accountability in achieving good governance.
Design of sampling method for schools and sub districts (both elementary and junior secondary schools, private and state school) is arranged proportionally based on education levels, parents social-economic strata, and the distance between schools and the District Education Office.
Socialization of survey purposes is conducted by the independent team to principals and school committees whose schools are chosen according to criteria set.
Each principal should provide a list of students whose parents will be willing to participate in the survey and be interviewed by the surveyors (proportionally based on parents social-economic and demographic strata, such as poor families, middle income families, and better off families, single parents)
Instrument of survey of parents satisfaction toward basic education services is arranged as simple as possible, standardized and consistent (Appendix 4) so that the findings could be compared to the same attributes across times, between locations, among education units and among education levels.
46. The Implementing Stage: At the implementing stage, activities consist of school observations and
parents’ interviews by the independent surveyors. During the process of
18
school observations, the surveyors need to cooperate with the school in asking and checking the basic education facilities and services.
The parents’ interviews are conducted by the independent surveyors at the parents’ house. They are not allowed to request parents to come to schools to be interviewed by surveyors.
47. The Monitoring and Evaluation Stage: At the monitoring and evaluation stage, the activities consist of checking
questionnaires during interviews and checking data among surveyors. Due to some reasons, if a respondent has to be replaced, then the replacement
has to be matching with the criteria of the original respondent. Other activities are coding (an activity of giving codes for every variable in
questionnaire); data entry needs to be monitored intensively; checking and cleaning data (fixing the numeric of the variables that consistent to the numeric at the questionnaires, etc); management of data quality (reliability of assessments), including the degree to which that the reseach assessments measure consistently with the theory; and data analysis. Data analysis for parents satisfaction survey uses the approach of Importance and Performance Analysis (IPA).
48. The Report Stage: Report of survey should provide a list of challenges based on findings and a
check- list of main priorities for improving performance of basic education services as the inputs from the parents evaluations.
By applying the correct instruments, then the survey findings could be compared across times. The correct instruments could become a diagnostic in measuring the real performance of local government in the provision of education services.
By applying the PSS instruments the survey findings could also be compared across locations (such as rural-urban, among sub-districts, among educations units), so that any disparities of performance in basic education sevices can be assessed.
19
REFERENCES
Badan Perencanaan Daerah Kabupaten Indramayu. 2008a. Indramayu Dalam Angka Tahun 2007.
Badan Perencanaan Daerah Kabupaten Indramayu. 2008b. Profil Daerah Kabupaten Indramayu 2008.
Badan Perencanaan Daerah Provinsi Jawa Barat dan Badan Pusat Statistik 2008. Penyusun Data Sosial Ekonomi Daerah Provinsi Jawa Barat Tahun 2008.
Badan Perencanaan Daerah Kabupaten Indramayu dan Badan Pusat Statistik. 2008. Indramayu Dalam Angka Tahun 2007.
Dinas Pendidikan Pemerintah Kabupaten Indramayu. 2008. Profil Pendidikan Kabupaten Indramayu Tahun 2007/ 2008.
Dinas Pendidikan Pemerintah Provinsi Jawa Barat. 2005. Rencana Strategis (Renstra) Dinas Pendidikan Propinsi Jawa Barat Tahun 2006-2008.
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2009. Buku Panduan: Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (BOS) Untuk Pendidikan Gratis Dalam Rangka Wajib Belajar 9 Tahun Yang Bermutu. Direktorat Jenderal Manajemen Pendidikan Dasar Dan Menengah.
Government Regulation of Republic of Indonesia No. 47/ 2008 concerning Compulsory Education.
Law No. 20/ 2003 concerning on National Education System.Badan Pusat Statistik. 2005. SUSEDA Jawa Barat. 2005 (Halaman 81-82 & 138-148).Bappenas. 2007a. Summary Report Millennium Development Goals. Indonesia 2007.
(Prepared by MDGs`Team).Bappenas. 2007b. Let’s Speak Out for MDGs: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals
in Indonesia 2007/2008. (Prepared by MDGs`Project-Bappenas - UNDP).Bappenas. 2009. Terms of Reference: Parent Satisfaction Survei of Basic Education Services
Provided by the Decentralized School Systems. ADB TA 4984 Strengthening Social Service Delivery for Poverty Reduction and Millennium Development Goals Acceleration Program (PRMAP).
Dinas Pendidikan Jawa Barat. 2005. Sub-Dinas PLS-Dinas Pendidikan Tahun 2005.Dinas Pendidikan Jawa Barat. 2005. Profil Pendidikan Jawa Barat Tahun 2005.BPS. 2005. SUSEDA Jawa Barat. Ministry of National Education. 2006. Indonesia: Educational Statistics in Brief 2005/ 2006.Ministry of National Education. 2007. Indonesian Report: The Elimination of All Form of
Discrimination Against Women in National Education System.Ministry of National Education. 2008. Institutional Capacity Building: Gender Mainstreaming
in Education.Ministry of National Education. 2008. Guidelines The School with Gender Perspective.Mowen. J.C, & M. Minor. 1998. Consumer Behavior, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Rangkuti. F. 1997. Riset pemasaran. Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Jakarta.Supranto. 2001. Pengukuran Tingkat Kepuasan Pelanggan untuk Menaikkan Pangsa Pasar.
Rineka Cipta. Jakarta.Stratford. Strafford-on-Avon District Council Customer Satisfaction Index June 2004. http:\\
www.strafford.gov.uk\community\council-805.cfm.htm. [29 Januari 2007].Umar. H. 2001. Metode Penelitian Untuk Skripsi dan Tesis Bisnis. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Jakarta.UNESCO. 2005. Policy Framework For Improving The Quality Of Teaching and Learning.
20
APPENDICES
21
Appendix 1. Summary of Parents Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services.
No Attributes of Basic Education Services
District of IndramayuELEMENTARY
(n=160)JUNIOR SECONDARY
(n=240)Total
(n=400)Less Satisf. Satisf. Less Satisf. Satisf. Less Satisf. Satisf.n % n % n % n % n % n %
1. Quality of Learning Process 76 47.5 84 52,5 87 36.2 153 63,8 163 40,75 237 59,32. Quality of Teaching 63 39.4 97 60,6 75 31.2 165 68,8 138 34,50 262 65,5
3. Results of Learning Processon the quality of students
80 50.0 80 50.0 111 46.2 129 53.8 191 47,75 209 52.3
4. Comfortability of School Condition for students
61 38.1 99 61.9 108 45.0 132 55.0 169 42,25 231 57.8
5. Maintenance of Discipline and School Safety
61 38.1 99 61.9 97 40.4 143 59.6 158 39,50 242 60.5
6. Participation of Parents 85 53.1 75 46.9 107 44.6 133 55.4 192 48,00 208 52.07. Quality of Physical Facilties 77 48.1 83 51.9 113 47.1 127 52.9 190 47,50 210 52.58. Readiness of Transfer Year 76 47.5 84 52.5 99 41.2 141 58.8 175 43,75 225 56.3
9. The Availability of Children’s School Costs
111 69.4 49 30.6 171 71.2 69 28.8 282 70,50 118 29.5
A1= Quality of Learning Process; A2= Quality of Teaching; A3= Results of Learning Process on the quality of students; A4= Comfortability of School Condition for students; A5= Maintenance of Discipline and School Safety; A6= Participation of Parents; A7= Quality of Physical Facilties; A8= Readiness of Transfer Year; A9= The Availability of Children’s School Costs.
22
Appendix 2. Summary of Principals Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services.
No Attributes of Basic Education Services
District of IndramayuELEMENTARY
(n=16)JUNIOR SECONDARY
(n=24)Total
(n=40)Less Satisf. Satisf. Less Satisf. Satisf. Less Satisf. Satisf.n % n % n % n % n % n %
1. Quality of Learning Process 4 25.00 12 75.00 13 54.17 11 45.83 17 42.50 23 57.502. Quality of Teaching 6 37.50 10 62.50 13 54.17 11 45.83 19 47.50 21 52.50
3. Results of Learning Processon the quality of students 11 68.75 5 31.25 9 37.50 15 62.50 20 50.00 20 50.00
4. Comfortability of School Condition for students 6 37.50 10 62.50 11 45.83 13 54.17 17 42.50 23 57.50
5. Maintenance of Discipline and School Safety 6 37.50 10 62.50 9 37.50 15 62.50 15 37.50 25 62.50
6. Participation of Parents 4 25.00 12 75.00 11 45.83 13 54.17 15 37.50 25 62.507. Quality of Physical Facilties 9 56.25 7 43.75 13 54.17 11 45.83 22 55.00 18 45.008. Readiness of Transfer Year 6 37.50 10 62.50 11 45.83 13 54.17 17 42.50 23 57.50
9. The Availability of Children’s School Costs 7 43.75 9 56.25 21 87.50 3 12.50 28 70.00 12 30.00
23
Appendix 3. Summary of School Committee Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services.
No Attributes of Basic Education Services
District of IndramayuELEMENTARY
(n=15)JUNIOR SECONDARY
(n=23)Total
(n=38)Less Satisf. Satisf. Less Satisf. Satisf. Less Satisf. Satisf.n % n % n % n % n % n %
1. Quality of Learning Process 5 33.33 10 66.67 10 43.48 13 56.52 15 39.47 23 60.532. Quality of Teaching 7 46.67 8 53.33 10 43.48 13 56.52 17 44.74 21 55.26
3. Results of Learning Processon the quality of students 9 60.00 6 40.00 8 34.78 15 65.22 17 44.74 21 55.26
4. Comfortability of School Condition for students 8 53.33 7 46.67 7 30.43 16 69.57 15 39.47 23 60.53
5. Maintenance of Discipline and School Safety 8 53.33 7 46.67 9 39.13 14 60.87 17 44.74 21 55.26
6. Participation of Parents 8 53.33 7 46.67 12 52.17 11 47.83 20 52.63 18 47.377. Quality of Physical Facilties 7 46.67 8 53.33 10 43.48 13 56.52 17 44.74 21 55.268. Readiness of Transfer Year 8 53.33 7 46.67 13 56.52 10 43.48 21 55.26 17 44.74
9. The Availability of Children’s School Costs 9 60.00 6 40.00 18 78.26 5 21.74 27 71.05 11 28.95
24
Appendix 4. The Difference Test of Parents Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services Between Poor and Non Poor Families.
No. Pertanyaan
ELEMENTARY JUNIOR SECONDARYMean of Satisfaction Rate
t (sig)Mean of Satisfaction Rate
t (sig)Poor (N=107)
Non-Poor (N=53)
Poor (N=192)
Non-Poor (N=48)
1. Quality of Learning Process 3,617 3,538 0,555 3,706 3,927 0,087*2. Quality of Teaching 3,664 3,604 0,652 3,794 4,010 0,075*
3. Results of Learning Processon the quality of students 3,491 3,726 0,099* 3,570 3,927 0,009***
4. Comfortability School Condition for students 3,785 3,557 0,105 3,521 3,990 0,001***
5. Maintenance Of Discipline and School Safety 3,827 3,594 0,084* 3,560 3,938 0,009***
6. Participation of Parents 3,430 3,415 0,921 3,497 3,906 0,004***7. Quality of Physical Facilties 3,621 3,453 0,200 3,435 3,865 0,005***8. Readiness of Transfer Year 3,617 3,528 0,529 3,638 4,052 0,000***
9. The Availability of Children’s School Costs 2,808 3,283 0,001*** 2,888 3,427 0,000***
Rate of All Satisfaction 3,580 3,600 0,821 3,610 3,880 0,025**
Note:* Significant at p= 0.10** Significant at p= 0.05*** Significant at p= 0.01
Poor = The Income/Capita/ Month Less or Equal to Poverty Line (for West Java Province at 2008 Rp 176 216,00).Non-Poor = The Income/Capita/ Month Larger than Poverty Line (for West Java Province at 2008 Rp 176 216,00).
25
Appendix 5. The Difference Test of Parents Satisfaction Rate Toward Nine Attributes of Basic Education Services Between Closed to and Far from Education District Office.
No. Pertanyaan
ELEMENTARY JUNIOR SECONDARYMean of Satisfaction Rate
t (sig)Mean of Satisfaction Rate
t (sig)Closed (N= 50)
Far (N= 110)
Closed (N= 130)
Far (N= 110)
1. Quality of Learning Process 3,14 3,68 0,000*** 3,66 3,68 0,8522. Quality of Teaching 3,26 3,68 0,002*** 3,81 3,72 0,379
3. Results of Learning Processon the quality of students 3,44 3,51 0,645 3,71 3,41 0,008***
4. Comfortability School Condition for students 3,68 3,63 0,722 3,64 3,41 0,054**
5. Maintenance Of Discipline and School Safety 3,80 3,64 0,255 3,69 3,44 0,30
6. Participation of Parents 3,16 3,38 0,158 3,55 3,48 0,5777. Quality of Physical Facilties 3,52 3,47 0,728 3,49 3,42 0,5528. Readiness of Transfer Year 3,40 3,56 0,279 3,82 3,46 0,000***
9. The Availability of Children’s School Costs 3,06 2,88 0,233 2,98 2,90 0,493
Rate of All Satisfaction 3,50 3,63 0,244 3,57 3,56 0,058*
Note:* Significant at p= 0.10** Significant at p= 0.05*** Significant at p= 0.01
Poor = The Income/Capita/ Month Less or Equal to Poverty Line (for West Java Province at 2008 Rp 176 216,00).Non-Poor = The Income/Capita/ Month Larger than Poverty Line (for West Java Province at 2008 Rp 176 216,00).
26
Appendix 6. The Average of Yearly Basic Education Expenses (n=60).
NO TYPES OF EXPENSES ELEMENTARY (Rp/ year)
(n=16 )
JUNIOR SECONDARY
(Rp/ year)(n= 44)
SCHOOL FEES 92 941.44 (3.09%) 284 532.09 (8.96%)1. Registration Fee 21 962.25 57 835.892. School Committee Fee 57 416.69 76 325.003. Other Fees 13 562.50 150 371.20
SCHOOL UNIFORMS 212 656.25 (7.06%) 152 306.80 (4.80%)4. 1. Maroon 52 656.25 55 704.555. 2. Batik/ school logo 47 187.50 19 981.056. 3. Muslim/ Religious 16 250.00 23 181.827. 4. Scout 42 812.50 28 840.918. 5. Sports 53 750.00 24 598.48
STATIONARY AND OTHERS 283 293.75 (9.41%) 318 477.27 (10.03%)9. Stationary (pen/pencils/notebooks
/papers) (Rp)211 793.75 183 329.55
10. Other stationaries 53 562.50 57 602.2711. Photocopy (Rp) 17 937.50 77 545.45
Bag and shoes 165 812.50 (5.51%) 145 970.45 (4.60%)12. School Bag 53 750.00 72 606.8213. Shoes 112 062.50 73 363.64
Tutorials 638 312.50 (21.20%) 182 772.73 (5.76%)14. Academic Tutorials 572 187.50 130 840.9115. Other Tutorials 66 125.00 51 931.82
Transportation & School Allowance
1 617 437.50 (53.73%) 2 091 522.70 (65.86%)
16. Transportation 283 875.00 468 204.5517. School Allowance 1 333 562.50 1 623 31.20
Average per Year 3 010 453.90 3 175 582.10Average per Month 250 871.16 264 631.84
27
Appendix 7. The Average of Yearly Basic Education Expenses (n=60).
28
Appendix 8. The reason of Children Drop – Out from School.
21.9
657
.84
57.4
276
.33
13.5
6 150.
37
52.6
655
.70
47.1
919
.98
16.2
523
.18
42.8
128
.84
53.7
5
24.6
0 211.
7918
3.33
53.5
657
.60
17.9
477
.55
53.7
572
.61
112.
06
73.3
657
2.19
130.
8466
.13
51.9
3 283.
88 468.
20
1,33
3.56 1,
623.
32
-100.00200.00300.00400.00500.00600.00700.00800.00900.00
1,000.001,100.001,200.001,300.001,400.001,500.001,600.001,700.00
Thou
sand
s
Reg
istra
tion
Fee
Sch
ool
Com
mitt
ee F
ee
Oth
er F
ees
Mar
oon
Bati
k/sc
hool
logo
Mus
lim/R
elig
ious
Sco
ut
Spo
rts
Sta
tiona
ry
Oth
erst
ation
arie
s
Pho
toco
py
Sch
ool b
ag
Sho
es
Aca
dem
ictu
toria
ls
Oth
er tu
toria
ls
Tran
spor
tatio
n
Sch
ool
allo
wan
ce
S chool F ees S chool U niforms S tationa ry a ndOthers
B ag a ndS hoes
Tutorials Trans portation& S chool
Allowance
T he Averag e of Yearly B as ic E duc ation E lementary J unior S ec ondary
29
ECONOMIC REASONS NON-ECONOMIC REASONS
REASONS OF STUDENTS (CHILDREN) DROP OUT FROM SCHOOL (n=40)
Do not have money for school expenses ( 73,0%)Unemployed parents ( 30,0%)
Failure of harvest/stop of income source ( 23,0%)
Has to work to earn money ( 35,0%)
Brother/ sister has to go to school at the same time ( 20,0%)
School expenses increased ( 63,0%)Transportation cost increased (20,0%)
Unable to provide uniform (5,0%)
The child losses of motivation to study ( 70,0%)Lazyness( 33,0%)
Feeling adequate education ( 15,0%)
Distance from home to school is far ( 20,0%)There is no guarantee for safety ( 15,0%)
Problems of the family disharmony ( 15,0%)Parent is sick/accident ( 10,0%)
The child is disable ( 5,0%)The child is sick and weak (15,0%)
Afraid of friends/school (30,0%)Afraid of harassment ( 10,0%)Naughty/ delinquent (2.5%)
Embarrased due to unable to read ( 2.5%)Minimum of 75 % of parents feel economic stress,
afraid of paying the bills/expenses, do not have enough money to pay school
fees/food/books/uniform and quarreling between parents because of money
30
Appendix 9. Instrument of Parents Satisfaction Survey Toward Basic Education Services.
According to you, how satisfied are you toward the basic education services: 1 = Not satisfied 2 = Less satisfied 3 = Satisfied Enough 4 = Satisfied
No. Attributes Satisfaction
VA
1. High Quality of Learning Process 1 2 3 4 012. High quality of Teaching 1 2 3 4 02
3. Result of Learning Processon the quality of students 1 2 3 4 03
4. Comfortable School Condition for students 1 2 3 4 045. Maintenance Of Discipline and School Safety 1 2 3 4 056. High Participation of Parents 1 2 3 4 067. High Quality of Physical Facilties 1 2 3 4 078. Readiness of Transfer Year 1 2 3 4 089. The Availability of Children’s School Costs 1 2 3 4 09
Next, according to you, how is the level of importance and the performance of each attribute of basic education services, anwer with the following choices: The Importance: 1 = Not important 2 = Less important 3 = Important 4= Very importantThe Performance: 1 = Bad 2 = Inadequate 3 = Quite Good 4= Very Good
No Attributes of Basic Education Services Importance Performance VB
1. High Quality of Learning Process a. Interesting learning activities 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 01
b. Learning can increase the students mastery in general 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 02
2. High quality of Teaching a. Teachers teach in good and high motivation 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 03b. Teachers give support to students 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 04c. Teachers hold D3-S1 degree 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 05
3. Result of Learning Processon the quality of students
a. Information of child’ performance to the parents 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 06
b. Teaching affect the increased of basic ability of student 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 07
c. Schools facilitate and motivate students 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 08
dChild’s character grows to be good child 9responsible, honest, respect, care, love, emphaty and discipline)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 09
4. Comfortable School Condition for studentsa. Child like to come to school 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 10b. Child is treated equally 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 11c. Child’s talent growing optimally 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 12
31
Appendix 9. (Continued).5. Maintenance Of Discipline and School Safety a. School is a safe place for studying 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 13b. All students are treated equally 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 14
c. Teachers will act immediately and appropriately ifthere is a problem 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 15
6. High Participation of Parents
a. Parents are supplied by useful information in the meeting 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 16
7. High Quality of Physical Facilties a. Building is maintained 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 17b. Having School Toilet 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 18c. Having proper tables and chairs 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 19d. Having proper Library 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 20e. Having Neat Classroom 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 21f. Having proper sports equipment 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 22g. Having sport field 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 238. Readiness of Transfer Year a. Students are ready to learn next year 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 249. The Availability of Children’s School Costs
a. The cost that is responsible by the parents 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 25
b.The contribution of Dana BOS toward the Total education expenses, so that reduce the economic burden of parents
1 2 3 41 2 3 4
26
c. Transportation cost 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 27d. books cost 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 28
e.The contribution of Dana BOS buku toward the Total education expenses, so that reduce the economic burden of parents
1 2 3 41 2 3 4
29
f. students exercice sheet cost 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 30g. School equipments 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 31
h. School Uniform cost (maroon/blue, batik, muslim shirt and Pramuka) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 32
i. Pocket money at school 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 33
32
Appendix 10. Matrix of Research Findings, and Recommendations of Improving Basic Education Services for District Government of Indramayu.
No Descriptions of Findings Concerning Parents Satisfaction Toward Basic
Education Services
Recommendation (Pillar)
1 Among nine attributes, the attribute score of school costs is the lowest score according to parents (BOS and BOS Buku). This low score is caused by the high expectations of parents from the big campaign of free basic education at the regional and national level. Meanwhile, in reality the parents have to spend relatively large amount of other school expenses for books, transportation, and school uniforms.
Parents who send their children to private elementary
schools have the higher score of satisfaction rate toward basic education services than that of state elementary schools. This can be attributed to high quality of education facilities.
Parents who send their children to state junior secondary schools have the higher score of satisfaction rate toward basic education services than that of private junior secondary schools. This can be attributed to high quality of education facilities.
Parents who send their children to junior secondary schools at sub districts closer to the Education District Office have the higher score of satisfaction rate toward basic education services than that junior secondary schools at sub districts further away from the Education District Office. . This can be attributed to high quality of education facilities.
Pillar 1: Equality of access Budget of “BOS” and “BOS Buku” have to be complementary by the local
government budget (especially sub-budget that is not provided by “BOS” and “BOS Buku”).
The increased of basic education services has to be more prioritized at elementary schools (especially state schools) and junior secondary schools (especially private schools) by increasing the community participations and industrial/ commercial institutions.
Education needs to be made more affordable for poor parents by reducing or eliminating costs of school uniform, textbooks and travel expenses. Increased scholarships for poor students at primary & junior secondary are needed, including transition scholarships from primary to junior secondary school. Other pro-poor programs which positively impact on education attendance should also be considered.
Pillar 2: Quality and relevanceThe increase in quality basic education services needs to be prioritized and expanded
in rural locations (schools further from the Education office) in poor socioeconomic communities to prevent dropout and increase net enrolments. This includes providing adequate infrastructure and facilities, learning materials & textbooks.
Advocacy campagn should be conducted targeting poor parents on the benefits of 9 years of basic education.
A campaign to encourage drop-out children back into education through non-formal (e.g. Package A and B) and formal routes.
Pillar 3: Increasing good governance & public accountability through increasing community participations.The remaining education budget after considering “ BOS” and “BOS Buku” is solved
by increasing the stakeholders and community participations with respect to justice, equality of access and education quality, openness an accountability. This can be achieved through all schools displaying school information publicly including school budgets and expenditures and consulting school committess in the planning of resources.
33
Appendix 10. (Continued).No Research findings Descriptions of Findings Recommendation (Pillar)2 The economic and/or non
economic reasons of drop-out children from school.
The economic reasons involve poverty reasons (do not have money for school expenses; unemployed parents; failure of harvest/stop of income source; school expenses increased; transportation cost increased; unable to provide uniform; has to work to earn money; brother/ sister has to go to school at the same time; minimum of 75 % of parents feel economic stress; afraid of paying the bills/expenses; do not have enough money to pay school fees/food/books/uniform and quarreling between parents because of money).
Pillar 1: Increasing The equality of access through preventing drop-out children from schools.
Increasing counceling/ sosialization among parents regarding the importance of education for their children. It is hoped that the socialization could also change the mind set of some families regarding the main purpose of basic education is not for seeking money, and children value is not viewed as family labors.The increasing commitments of government to provide fellowships for poor children and providing assistance/ counceling.The non-economic reasons involve the
child losses of motivation to study; lazyness; feeling adequate education; distance from home to school is far; there is no guarantee for safety; problems of the family disharmony; parent is sick/accident; the child is disable; the child is sick and weak; the chils is afraid ( of friends/school, afraid of harassment), the child is naughty/ delinquent; or the child embarrased due to unable to read.
34