This document discusses a study on the influence of principal leadership and school committee engagement on the effectiveness of implementing school-based management (SBM) policies at public elementary schools in Bandung, Indonesia. The study found that principal leadership and school committee engagement both had a high impact on SBM effectiveness. Specifically, the influences of principal leadership and school committee engagement each fostered greater SBM effectiveness. While the results were good, the study concluded that principals and school committees should strengthen their roles and responsibilities to further enhance school improvement.

1. 1
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT OF
SCHOOL COMMITTEE TO THE EFFECTIVENES IMPLEMENTING
SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT
(Descriptive Study at Public Elementary Schools in Coblong Sub-district,
in Bandung City, Indonesia)
By:
Mut Somoeun
Preah Sihanouk Raj Buddhist University (SBU)
# 393, Preah Sisowath Quay, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: mangal.khmer@gmail.com
Aan Komariah
Indonesia University of Education (UPI)
Abstract
School-based management (SBM) is a decentralization of decision-making power
from central office to local school. Thus, this study is focused on the influence of
principal leadership and engagement of school committee which contribute to the
SBM effectiveness. It is conducted at public elementary schools in Coblong sub-
district in Bandung. The method used in this study is the descriptive-quantitative
approach by giving closed-ended questionnaires to 72 respondents. The study
population is 36 public elementary schools. The study results found that: (1) the
influence of principal leadership has high impact on the SBM effectiveness; (2)
the engagement of school committee has high impact on the SBM effectiveness;
(3) both the influence of principal leadership and engagement of school
committee have high impact on the SBM effectiveness. Although the results are
good, both principal and school committee should more strengthen their key roles
and responsibilities for enhancing better school improvement.
Keywords: School-Based Management, Principal Leadership, and School
Committee.
Abstrak
Manajemen berbasis sekolah(MBS) adalah desentralisasi kekuasaan pengambilan
keputusan dari kantor pusat ke sekolah lokal. Penelitian ini difokuskan pada
pengaruh kepemimpinan kepala sekolah dan keterlibatan komite sekolah yang
berkontribusi terhadap efektivitas MBS. Penelitian ini dilakukan di sekolah-
sekolah dasar negeri di Kecamatan Coblong Bandung. Metode yang digunakan
dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan deskriptif-kuantitatif dengan memberikan
kuesioner tertutup berakhir 72 responden. Populasi penelitian adalah 36 sekolah
dasar negeri. Studi ini menemukan bahwa: (1) pengaruh kepemimpinan kepala
sekolah memiliki dampak yang tinggi terhadap efektivitas MBS; (2) keterlibatan
komite sekolah memiliki dampak yang tinggi terhadap efektivitas MBS; (3) kedua
pengaruh kepemimpinan kepala sekolah dan keterlibatan komite sekolah memiliki
dampak yang tinggi terhadap efektivitas MBS. Meskipun hasilnya baik, kepala
sekolah dan komite sekolah harus lebih memperkuat peran dan tanggung jawab
untuk meningkatkan perbaikan sekolah yang lebih baik.
Kata kunci: Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah, Kepemimpinan Kepala Sekolah, dan
Komite Sekola

2. 2
INTRODUCTION
In this 21st
century of education, the school-based management (SBM) has
been viewed largely as a political reform that transfers a central power over
management of budget, personnel and curriculum to individual school. SBM aims
to drive greater school improvement by fostering principal’s roles and involving
stakeholders to school communities through putting the hard work and generating
significantly better results for their students. Another term, SBM is to foster the
effectiveness of school and extends to which the schools themselves can perform
their core functions such as technical and economics, human and social, political,
culture, and educational. In this sense, the effectiveness of the schools shows
effective school performance in improving the high quality of education (Teguh
Sihono and Rohaila Yusof, 2012).
Indonesia started implementing SBM in 1999. The central government
established a Commission of National Education in February 2001 on the basis of
Law 22/1999 for decentralizing education system (Journal of NTT Studies, 2009).
Until 2002, the government provided a set of guidelines to establish mandatory
corporate governing body type school councils (the SBM principles, Decree No.
044/U/2002 on Education Board and School Committees) by defining the school
committee as a community representative body at school level with members from
parents, community leaders, education professionals, private sector, education
associations, teachers, NGOs and village officials. Furthermore, the Education Act
20/2003 (art. 56) states that community shall take part in the quality improvement
of educational services, which include planning, monitoring, and evaluation of
educational programs through Educational Council and School Council.
Through decentralization of education reform, Indonesia’s SBM design
incorporates some features that are considered as essential to SBM effectiveness
(Barrera- Osorio et al., 2009). First, the Indonesian reform is designed to provide a
high level of autonomy to schools and encourage broad participation of the local
community in school affairs. Second, SBM in Indonesia provides schools with the
autonomy to exercise power in resource allocation over a block of discretionary

3. 3
funds, called BOS (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah). BOS allows schools to cover
operational costs based on annual per student basis by facilitating autonomous
SBM resource allocation regarding the disbursement of funds according to school
priorities across almost all school activities (except paying bonuses to teachers,
rehabilitation of facilities, and building new rooms or buildings). Third, through
central government direction, the SBM reform calls for the creation of school
committees, BOS teams and teaching boards that are made up of teachers, parents
and community leaders. Fourth, the reform encourages schools to engage in self-
evaluation and monitoring of their processes, which schools are expected to
inform stakeholders for their decisions, and to be accountable for their decisions
through monitoring by education districts, school committees, parents, and the
immediate community (Vernez, G., Karam, R. & Marshall, J., 2012).
According to the World Bank (RAND, 2012:1-4) although the Indonesian
government has broadly implemented SBM policy since 2003, the national survey
was conducted throughout the country with 400 principals in 2010 indicated that
most principals consulted with teachers, district staff, and other school principals
before making decisions, community and parent participation in school decision-
making was very limited. Members of school committees, which were designed to
facilitate parental and community involvement in education, rarely participated in
school affairs. The survey revealed that school committee participated in decisions
in 44 percent of schools. Principals mainly viewed the school committee as an
intermediary between the schools and parents, and the school committee members
expressed attitudes of noninterference with school matters and deference to school
staff. Commonly, parents similarly expressed deference to school staff, and most
principals and teachers reported feeling little or no pressure from parents to
improve school performance. As a result, parents and community members are not
participating as fully as envisioned, and the decision-making authority of principal
at school level was: 88% in recruiting and hiring teachers; 99% in setting school
vision and goal; 88% in developing school curriculum; 65% in setting school
calendar; 88% in selecting textbooks; 96% in student administrating; and 99% in
allocating school budget. The survey further emphasized that although the policy

4. 4
change toward local autonomy, districts still strongly influenced school policies
and practices. Principals reported that they rarely made decisions without seeking
district approval out of fear of making a mistake or appearing authoritarian. The
finding shown that the district influence was equal to/greater than that of teachers
in all areas averaging 3.2 to 3.6 on a scale of 4—except in classroom instructional
practices. Principals frequently had meeting with district staff, which indicated the
district’s continued prominent role in school decision-making.
Based on the background of research above, this study has six research
questions as the followings:
1. How is the influence of principal leadership in performing roles and
responsibilities strengthened at public elementary schools in Coblong
sub-district, Bandung city?
2. How is the engagement of school committee promoted at public
elementary schools in Coblong sub-district, Bandung city?
3. How far is the effectiveness of implementing SBM policy at public
elementary schools in Coblong sub-district, Bandung city?
4. How can the influences of principal leadership foster the effectiveness
of implementing SBM policy in Coblong sub-district, Bandung?
5. How can the engagement of school committee foster the effectiveness
of implementing SBM at public elementary schools in Coblong?
6. How much can the influence of principal leadership and engagement
of school committee enhance the effectiveness of SBM policy?
1. School-Based Management
School-based management (SBM) has many different names including
site-based management, school-sited autonomy, school-sited management, school-
centered management, decentralized management, school-based budgeting, site
based decision-making, responsible autonomy, school-lump sum budgeting,
shared governance, the autonomous school concept, school-based curriculum
development, and administrative decentralization (Clune and White, 1988; and
Jerome G. Delaney, 1998).

5. 5
Although there are different names, UNESCO (2012) defined SBM as the
way of measuring the degree of centralization and decentralization to ask where
the decisions are made on these areas: core curriculum; school construction;
school location; school maintenance; teacher compensation; teacher recruitment;
and textbook selection. While A. De Grauwe (2004) as cited in the Education for
All Global Monitoring Report (2005:4) that the most recurrent arguments of SBM
are: more democratic: allowing teachers and parents to take decisions about an
issue of such importance as education is certainly more democratic than to keep
this decisions in the hands of a select group of central-level officials; more
relevant: locating the decision-making power closer to where problems are being
experienced will lead to more relevant policies as local staff generally know their
own situation better; less bureaucratic: decisions will be taken much quicker if
they do not need to go through a long bureaucratic process, but can be made at a
level close to the school; stronger accountability: allowing schools and teachers
greater say implies that they can be held accountable for their results towards
parents and the close community directly, such accountability is expected to act as
a tool for greater effectiveness; greater resource mobilization: teachers and
especially parents will be more eager to contribute to the funding of their school if
they have a say in the organization and management it.
According to Dr. K. Pushpanadham (cited in the ABAC Journal Vol. 26,
No.1, 2006), SBM model fosters principals, teachers, students, and parents to
have greater control over decisions of budget, personnel, and the curriculum
development. Commonly, SBM has principle, dimension, and impact in practice
at school level as the followings:
a. Principles of SBM
1). Decentralization: individual local schools are authorized to have power
in making decision for their own educational development. This means that at
school level, school leaders and stakeholders (community) can plan, monitor, and
evaluate their school by them-selves, which is not to do what they are told.

6. 6
2). Autonomy: Rights in making decisions over the budget management,
staff management, school governance, and curriculum development are given to
the local schools to grow up themselves with their responsibilities.
3). Collaboration: Principals do not work alone in school or just follow the
central office’s force/decisions but they have to fosters the local participations of
stakeholders; especially, they have to build a good relationship among teachers,
school committee, parents, and community members to work, decide and share
responsibilities together to improve school with accountability.
4). Planning and Evaluation: On the basis of SBM, at the school level can
establish school board or school committee who are competent and have right to
plan strategy for developing staff, budget and curriculum, and giving feedback.
b. Dimensions of SBM
1).Budget Management: Principal and school committee members through
open discussions, they can make decision on school budget expenditures and find
funds from various sources for supporting their school development processes.
2). Staff Management: Principal and in some case with discussion among
school committees can decide to promote, assign, compensate, hire or terminate
staff or teachers for school improvement purpose.
3). Curriculum Development: Based on the SBM policy, each local school
can develop its core curriculum and select textbook for students’ needs.
c. Impacts of SBM in School
1).Learning Culture: effective SBM implementation brings good condition
of school that leads to positive culture.
2).Positive Human Relations: a good condition of school and culture, the
active participation and communication is increased.
3).High Reputation: SBM increases satisfaction of teachers, students,
parents, and all stakeholders which brings the school well-known to the outside.
4). High Academic Performance: When the community participation is at
high level and teachers’ performance is well managed, then it will push student
achievement at high level too.

7. 7
5). Sense of Ownership: All school stakeholders or participants feel every
progress and even materials or human resources belong to them, then the school
responsiveness is created by all members of the school.
6). Innovation and Change: Through participation, shared decision and
responsibilities, innovation and positive change will surely happen in school; that
is school improvement.
2. Principal Leadership
Principal leadership is a performance or an effort to influence people or
followers in a school organization done by the principal, and the result he/she
aims to achieve in implementing school management to reach the designed goal of
education by being effective, efficient, productive, and accountable. The principal
has a very important role in school management so that it is in parallel with public
demand and progression of era; especially, in the progress of science, technology,
culture, and arts. This idea contributes to the better understanding of how the roles
and responsibilities of school leaders can shift from individual-centered to
organizational-centered as shared decision and responsibilities for the outcomes of
schooling (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Gronn & Hamilton, 2004).
For Shelly Habegger, as cited in the Principal’s Role in Successful Schools
(Sept/ Oct 2008: 42-43), there are some main roles and responsibilities of school
principal in leading school such as: assuring instruction aligned to state academic
content standards; maintaining continuous improvement in the building; designing
instruction for student success; developing partnerships with parents and the
community; and nurturing a culture where each individual feels valued. He further
emphasized that positive school culture is the heart of improvement and growth
which the principals need to create a sense of belonging and providing a clear
direction for all involved people. However, Derrick Meador (cited in Keys to
Being an Effective Principal, 2013) asserted that principal should focus on his/her
school operations in these areas: school leadership; teacher evaluation; student
discipline; implementing, and evaluating programs; reviewing policies and
procedures; school schedule setting; hiring new teachers; parent and community

8. 8
relations; and authority delegation.
Although there are different ideas on principal leadership, Michael Usdan,
Barbara McCloud, and Mary Podmostko (as cited in the School Leadership for the
21st Century Initiative, Leadership for Student Learning, 2000) clarified the major
roles and responsibilities of principal leadership in three dimensions in school
community, those are: (a) instructional leadership; (b) community leadership; and
(c) visionary leadership.
a. Instructional leadership
The principal must put special focus on strengthening the teaching and
learning process, professional development, data-driven decision making and
accountability. The focus of teaching and learning instruction, forming structures
and collaborative processes for faculty to work together to improve learning , and
ensure that continuous professional development and focusing on the goals of the
school are the major tasks that must be performed by principals to becoming an
effective instructional leader. Lunenburg (2006: 14) stated that the instructional
principal must achieve school goals by focusing on the followings:
1). Focus on learning: Expectations for high level of student achievements
by communicating directly with the students, teachers, and parents; setting clear
rules and expectations for the use of time allocated to teaching and monitoring.
2). Fostering Collaboration: ensure that teachers 'expectations are aligned
with instructional objectives; discuss the students' learning process; structure of
collaboration in a team of teachers; working with teachers to improve instructional
programs; and developing the instructional programs based on honesty.
3). Analyzing Results: showing the linked data on each student; specifying
objectives and target levels in school curriculum; and sizing assessment aligning
with curriculum and indicating student learning.
4). Providing Support: teachers should be given the training, and teaching
tools; helping teachers to access curriculum guides, textbooks, or specific training
related to curriculum; and professional development for teachers.

9. 9
5). Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment: the process of
student learning should be aligned with curriculum and instruction-book teachers;
determining, implementing, and evaluating students and teachers; assessment may
change the nature of learning and teaching toward the curriculum richer and more
challenging; promoting discussion and collaboration among teachers; creating a
good conversation between teachers and parents; and focusing on stakeholder
leadership to improve the performance of students.
b. Community leadership
The principal should manifest in a big-picture awareness of the school’s
role in society; promote shared leadership among educators, community partners
and residents; build good relations with parents and others; and open advocacy for
school capacity building and resources. To David Lustick and Jing Lei (2005: 64),
the principal should engage in these activities: provide channels for involving the
community in the school’s operation; invite parents to become partners in the
education process; and coordinate school-community relationships. In this sense,
principal needs to listen, consults, and engages in dialogues more and identifies
the needs of teachers, parents and learners (MINEDUC, 2008:5). The principal,
teachers, parents and students have to work together to promote collaboration and
participation by encouraging stakeholders to share decisions and responsibilities
for planning effective teaching and learning activities, and strengthening school-
self management in school community.
c. Visionary leadership
A visionary principal should have a clear vision by demonstrating energy,
commitment, entrepreneurial spirit, values and conviction to all children in school
to learn at high levels, as well as inspiring other people both inside and outside the
school building to work together for school effectiveness.
According to Shoji Shiba and David Walden (Surinder Kapur, 2007), there
are eight principles in visionary leadership: 1) a visionary leader must do on-site
observation leading to personal perception of changes in societal values from an
outsider's point of view; 2) Even though there is resistance, never give up; squeeze

10. 10
the resistance between outside-in pressures in combination with top-down inside
instruction; 3) transformation is begun with symbolic disruption of the old or
traditional system through top-down efforts to create chaos within the
organization; 4) the direction of transformation is illustrated aimed by a symbolic
visible image and the visionary leader's symbolic behavior; 5) quickly establishing
new physical, organizational and behavioral systems is essential for successful
transformation; 6) real change leaders are necessary to enable transformation; 7)
create an innovative system to provide feedback from results; and 8) create a daily
operation system, including a new work structure, new approach to human
capabilities and improvement activities.
In short, the three major roles in school leadership of principal are the basis
leading to school improvement in establishing a vision and mission, setting goals,
managing staff, rallying the community, creating effective learning environments
building support systems for students, and guiding instruction for teaching quality.
3. School Committee
A school site council/committee is defined as an elected group of teachers,
parents, and classified employees who work with the site principal to develop,
review, evaluate and allocate funds for school improvement programs at school
level (www.jdusd.k12.ca.us/primary.cfm). The school committee is established at
school that participates in the school improvement programs. As a well-diversified
group of individuals, they make decisions with principal about how state-allocated
school improvement funds should be spent in their school by encouraging the
parents of students to attend the school meetings.
Murphy and Beck (1998: 14) stated that a “central feature of SBM is the
site council or school committee”. While school committee varies in composition
and responsibilities; most writers agree that it is within a school committee that
school stakeholders such as principals, teachers, parents, community members and
students do participate in decision making. In this sense, the school site council or
school committee is a form of community engagement in school governance,
based on regulation, with elected but voluntary membership.

11. 11
In Indonesia, Decree 044/U/2002 states that school committee sometimes
called school site council committee is defined as an independently elected body
which its members shall be comprised of parents, teachers, community leaders,
education professionals, private sector, education association, NGOs, and village
officials. The community representatives should be consisted of: parents; public
figures; educational experts; industries/businesses; professional organization of
teachers; representatives of alumni; and at secondary level, representatives of
students. This Decree also stipulates that the school shall be empowered to
exercise the four major roles at school level, including: (1) an advisory agency in
determining/approving educational policies at school level; (2) a supporting
agency in supporting the school both in financial and non-financial matters; (3) a
controlling agency for the purpose of accountability and transparency at school
level; (4) a mediator in term of communication between school, government, and
community. In addition, the Indonesian Education Act 20/2003 (art. 56) defines
school committee as an independent body established to provide advice, directions
and support for personnel, facilities and equipment, and monitoring to individual
school.
According to Robert V. Antonucci (1995), the school committee’s roles
are involved in these areas: establish educational goals and policies for the schools
in the district, consistent with the requirements of law and the statewide goals and
standards established by the board of education; responsible for adopting general
disciplinary policies for students in consultation with the superintendent; delegate
to the superintendent and principal the authority to define detailed rules of student
conduct; reviews and approves the budget for education programs; hold a public
hearing on the proposed annual budget; determine school expenditures; adopt the
professional development plan for principal, teachers and other professional.
However, the school committee cannot make decision alone but with discussions
or shared decisions with principal, teachers, parents, and community for effective
education reform, including participatory decision-making, parent and community
involvement, and training for members of school council.
Even thought there are different ideas relating roles of school committee,

12. 12
Triton Regional School in Massachusetts, USA (2013) and Foxborough Public
School (2008) have the common idea concerning with roles and responsibilities of
school committee at school level. They state the school committee has five major
roles and responsibilities as the followings:
(1) Policy making: the school committee is responsible for development of
the school policy as guides for administrative action and for employing a
superintendent who will implement its policies.
(2) Appraisal: the school committee is responsible for evaluating the
effectiveness of its policies and their implementation.
(3) Provision of financial resources: the school committee is responsible
for adoption of a budget that will enable the school system to carry out the
committee's policies.
(4) Public relations: the school committee is responsible for providing
adequate and direct means for keeping the local citizenry informed about the
schools and for keeping itself and the school staff informed about the needs and
wishes of the public.
(5) Educational planning and evaluation: the committee is responsible for
ensuring that educational objectives are set that promote continual improvement
of the educational programs.
Based on some concepts cited above, the major roles of school committee
should be summarized into these areas: sharing decision-making in setting school
vision, mission, and goal; planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the
school programs; managing school budget; hiring, terminating, and compensating;
bridging relations; promoting parental and community participations through
sensitizing, involving and effectively communicating educational information to
all parents, pupils, community stakeholders, and toward local authorities in order
to seek the effectiveness of education quality, student outcomes, teaching quality
and building good environments or conditions of school.

13. 13
In this research framework shows the process of the influence of principal
leadership (X1), and engagement of school committee (X2) having impact on the
effectiveness of implementing school-based management (Y) as the figure below:
This study is conducted at public elementary schools in Coblong sub-
district in Bandung city, Indonesia. The method used in this study is descriptive-
survey of quantitative approach with total population of 36 public elementary
schools. And the closed-ended questionnaires were given to 72 respondents (36
principals and 36 school committees). Two people were selected from each school
(one principal and one head of school committee) for this study.
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
Based on calculation of correlation coefficient both simple and multiple,
the findings of this research found as the followings:
a. With 36 respondents of principals responded to 23 questions about the
influence of principal leadership (X1), the findings with an average score of each
dimension are shown in the diagram below:

14. 14
Based on this figure, the influence of principal leadership in performing
their roles and responsibilities relating to the instructional leadership, community
leadership, and visionary leadership at public elementary schools in Coblong sub-
district is very high with total average score of 4.01. The magnitude of impact of
the influence of principal leadership(X1) toward the effectiveness of implementing
school-based management (Y) is in strong category with 36.240%.
b. With 36 respondents of school committees responded to 25 questions
about the engagement of school committee(X2), the findings with an average
score of each dimension are shown in the diagram below:
Based on the figure above, the engagement of school committee (X2) in
performing roles and responsibilities concerning with making school policies,
policy appraisal, provision of financial resources, public relations, and educational
planning and evaluation at public elementary schools in Coblong sub-district are
high with total average score of 3.76. The magnitude of impact of the engagement
of school committee (X2) toward the effectiveness of implementing school-based
management (Y) is in strong category with 37.454%.
c. With 36 respondents of principals responded to 17 questions about the
effectiveness of implementing school-based management (Y), the findings with an
average score of each dimension are shown in the diagram below:

15. 15
Based on the figure above, the effectiveness of implementing school-based
management in exercising authorities as autonomy at local school for managing
and adapting its own budget with accountability; managing its own staff; and
developing and designing its own curriculum and instructional programs or
schedule at public elementary schools in Coblong sub-district, Bandung city is
high with total average score of 3.90.
In summary, the impact magnitude of the influence of principal leadership
(X1) and the engagement of school committee (X2) toward the effectiveness of
implementing school-based management (Y) is in strong category with 49.140%,
while the remaining 50.859% is influenced by the other variables. Based on the
results of hypothesis test on each variable with correlation coefficient, the findings
in this study are shown in the figure below:
CONCLUSION
Based on the research findings and discussion above, this thesis entitled
“The Influence of Principal Leadership and Engagement of School Committee

16. 16
toward the Effectiveness of Implementing School-Based Management” draws the
conclusion with critical analysis of correlation coefficient technique on the impact
magnitudes of each variable as the followings:
1. The Influence of Principal Leadership at the public elementary schools
in Coblong sub-district is in the very high category. This finding is shown by the
average score calculation on the three key dimensions of the principal leadership,
including: (1) Instructional Leadership, (2) Community Leadership, and (3)
Visionary Leadership. However, the finding indicates that in each dimension,
principals perform their roles in school operations with very high level in term of
improving instructional matters and encouraging the community involvements,
yet they still exercise highly their roles in building a visionary commitment and
designer for modeling and attracting the relevant stakeholders to get involved in
school affairs (inspiring, facilitating, and bridging).
2. The Engagement of School Committee at the public elementary schools
in Coblong sub-district is in the high category. This result is indicated by the
average score calculation on the five key dimensions of the school committees’
involvements in the school affairs, namely: (1) making school policies, (2) policy
appraisal, (3) provision of financial resources, (4) public relations, and (5)
educational planning and evaluation. With these dimensions, the scores of average
calculation show that the school committees’ participations are almost at the same
level in term of executing their roles and functions in school operations.
3. The Effectiveness of Implementing School-Based Management at the
public elementary schools in Coblong sub-district are in the high category. This
result is shown by the calculation of average score on the effectiveness of school-
based management implementation in term of managing the local school over
three main dimensions, namely: (1) budget management, (2) staff management,
and (3) curriculum development. As a result, the indicators point out that every
local school can manage their school at almost the same level, except the budget
management is at higher level than the other two dimensions.
4. As shown in the data analysis results, the hypothesis testing reveals that
the Influence of Principal Leadership contributing toward the Effectiveness of

17. 17
Implementing School-Based Management at Public Elementary Schools in
Coblong sub-district, in Bandung city, Indonesia has impact of 36.240%, which is
in the strong category of correlation coefficient. Whereas the Engagement of
School Committee has impact of 37.454% contributing toward the Effectiveness
of Implementing School-Based Management, which is in the strong category of
correlation coefficient. The magnitude of Influence of Principal Leadership and
the Engagement of School Committee have impact of 49.140% contributing
toward the Effectiveness of Implementing School-Based Management, which is in
the strong category of correlation coefficient, while the remaining 50.859% is
influenced by the other factors.
As results, it can be concluded that although each variable shows the level
of performances and participations of school principals and school committees at
the 36 public elementary school in Coblong sub-district are at very high and high
expectation, seeing the hypothesis testing result on the significant correlation of
influence toward the effectiveness of implementing school-based management is
not really high. This means the effect result is below 50%, which is still low that
inevitably requires more improvement of the principals’ performances and school
committees’ involvements to help enhancing the effectiveness of school-based
management for school success.
REFERENCES
Howard Adelman and Linda Taylor (2011). School Improvement Planning:
What’s Missing? Center for Mental Health in Schools, Dept. of
Psychology, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Howard Adelman and Linda Taylor (June, 2011). What Every Leader for School
Improvement Needs to Know About Student and Learning Supports. Center
for Mental Health in Schools, Dept. of Psychology, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Jamie Wallin, Ph.D (2003). Improving School Effectiveness. ABAC Journal Vol.
23, No.1 (January - April, 2003), The University of British Columbia.
The Wallace Foundation (2012). The Making of the Principal: Five Lessons in
Leadership Training.
Rahim Jamal Jones (06/01/2007). The Principal's Role in Building Teacher
Leadership Capacity in High-Performing Elementary Schools: A
Qualitative Case Study. University of South Florida.
Shelly Habegger (Sept/Oct 2008). The Principal’s Role in Successful Schools:
Creating a Positive School Culture. Ohio: www.naesp.org

18. 18
Chinelo O. Duze (2012). The Changing Role of School Leadership and Teacher
Capacity. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy
Studies (JETERAPS) 3 (1): 111-117, Scholarlink Research Institute
Journals, 2012 (ISSN: 2141-6990)
Bush, T. (2003). Theories of Educational Leadership and Management (3rd Ed.).
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Education Improvement Commission (November 2000). School Improvement
Planning for Principals, Teachers and School Councils. A Handbook
(ISBN 0-7794-0284-7), http://eic.edu.gov.on.ca
Frank D. Barnes (2004). Inquiry and Action: Making School Improvement, Part of
Daily Practice. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown
University
Dandan Chen (September 2011). School-Based Management, School Decision-
Making and Education Outcomes in Indonesian Primary Schools. The
World Bank, East Asia and Pacific Region Education Sector Unit
A. De Grauwe (2004). School-based management (SBM): does it improve
quality? UNESCO: Background paper prepared for the Education for All
Global Monitoring Report 2005, The Quality Imperative.
Bambang Sumintono, Nora Mislan and Hamdan Said (Vol. IV, No.1, June 2012).
School Committee: an Implementation of School-Based Management
Policy at School Level in Indonesia. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia
Gregory J. Palardy (01 March 2008). School Effectiveness and School
Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice.
University of California, Riverside, CA, USA
Cythia L. Uline, Daniel M. Miller and Megan Tschannen-Moran (Oct 1998).
School Effectiveness: The Underlying Dimensions. International Journal:
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol.34, No.4 (Oct 1998) 462-483
Hugh Watson Consultin (June 2004). Report on Evaluation of School-Based
Management.
Pam Sammons (2006). Embracing Diversity: New challenges for School
Improvement in a Global Learning Society International Congress for
School Effectiveness and Improvement (Fort Lauderdale Florida 4th
January 2006). The University of Nottingham, School of Education
Sarah Jennings Rosenberg and Helen F. Ladd (April 29, 2011). The Challenges in
Implementing School Improvement Grant Models in Rural High Schools.
The Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University
Geoff N Masters (April 2012). Measuring and Rewarding School Improvement.
Australian Council for Educational Research, The Commonwealth
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
(DEEWR)
Geoffrey D. Borman, Laura Rachuba, Amanda Datnow, Marty Alberg, Martha
MacIver, Sam Stringfield, & Steve Ross (September 2000). Four Models
of School Improvement: Successes and Challenges in Reforming Low-
Performing, High-Poverty Title I Schools. Johns Hopkins University and
University of Memphis

19. 19
Socorro P. Canaya (March 15, 2008). Participatory Decision Making VIS- A- VIS
Teachers’ Morale and Students’ Achievement in Public Secondary Schools
in Zamboanga City. Western Mindanao State University Zamboanga City
Anit Somech (2010). Participative Decision Making in Schools: A Mediating-
Moderating Analytical Framework for Understanding School and Teacher
Outcomes. SAGE: www.sagepublications.com
Sello Mokoena (2011). Participative Decision-making: Perceptions of School
Stakeholders in South Africa. Journal of Social Science, 29 (2): 119-131
(2011) published by University of South Africa
World Bank (December 2007).Guiding Principles for Implementing School-based
ManagementPrograms. Web: www.worldbank.org/education/economicsed
Sello Mokoena (2012). Effective Participative Management: Does It Affect Trust
Levels of Stakeholders in Schools? Kamla-Raj: Journal Social Science,
30(1): 43-53 (2012)
Ai Shoraku (2008). Educational Movement Toward School-Based Management in
South-East Asia: Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand. UNESCO:
Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2009
Raihani (2007). Education reforms in Indonesia in the twenty-first century.
University of Melbourne, Australia: International Education Journal, 2007,
8(1), 172-183. ISSN 1443-1475 © 2007 Shannon Research Press.
Felipe Barrera-Osorio, Tazeen Fasih and Harry Anthony Patrinos (2009).
Decentralized Decision-Making in Schools. The Theory and Evidence on
School-Based Management. © 2009 The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
MINEDUC (July 2008): Roles, duties and responsibilities of school management
team. Mineduc School Management, ©NCDC.
The Single Plan For Student Achievement (March 2006): A Handbook for School
Site Councils. California Department of Education, USA
Martin Prew (2009): Community Involvement in School Development Modifying
School Improvement Concepts to the Needs of South African Township
Schools. SAGE Publications, London, Los Angeles, New Delhi, Singapore
and Washington DC. BELMAS Vol 37(6) 824–846; 345562
Amy C. Berg, Atelia Melaville, and Martin J. Blank, (2006): Community and
Family Engagement. Coalition for Community Schools, National
Association of Elementary School Prinipals. Washington, DC 2008
Cara Stillings Candal (September 2009), School-Based Management: A Practical
Path to School District Reform. Center for School Reform, Pioneer
Institute, Public Policy Resesarch
RAND (2012): Transforming Indonesia’s Centralized Education System to
School-Based Management. Santa Monica, California, USA
Bill Mulford (April 2003), School Leaders: Changing Roles and Impact on
Teacher and School Effectiveness. University of Tasmania
Bambang Sumintono (2009): School-Based Management Policy and Its Practices
at District Level in the Post New Order Indonesia. Journal of Indonesian
Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 2, 2009, pp. 41–67. University of
Technology Malaysia