Implications of the Study for Alignment between Research and Policy
Page 54 of 464
One of the criticisms made of tertiary educators in Australia, especially in the field of education, and I assume it is the same in Indonesia, is that they do not understand the
reality of the school and the challenges faced by principals and teachers. In Australia there is a fierce and ongoing debate about how well universities prepare teachers and school
leaders.
One important way of responding to this criticism is to provide tertiary educators with more opportunities to engage with and work alongside school-based educators through research
studies, school-based action research and joint program evaluations. The additional benefit of this partnership approach, and MoEC has agreed to this in relation to the present study, is
that researchers can use the findings from studies to improve their personal understanding of current issues in Indonesian education and to publish papers to build their credibility and
standing in the international research community.
The implementation of the study also identified some priorities for capacity development for researchers. In particular, the ability of researchers to collect and analyse rich qualitative
data varied considerably across the participating institutions, despite the guidance and training provided by the study team.
It was apparent that even some highly qualified tertiary educators lacked experience in conducting, recording and analysing data from interviews and focus group discussions. There
was a tendency for qualitative data collectors to accept at face value the response of interviewees and there was a lack of capacity or willingness to ask more probing questions of
interviewees and to help them reflect more deeply on their responses. In some cases the qualitative interviews were conducted like quantitative surveys.
This is an important issue that needs to be addressed by educational research institutions. For education research, observation, questioning, analysing documents and other qualitative
data collection methodologies are crucial for providing rich and credible data about schools, students and principals.
Related to this is the fact that many senior education policy-makers in Indonesia are not prepared to rely on data based on self-perception or the perceptions of others to guide
policy development. They want hard data, by which many of them mean test results.
I believe this is a very problematic approach for them to take. The self-perceptions and perceptions of colleagues, gathered through valid and reliable quantitative and qualitative
data collection methods, provide very important information for policy-makersabout the development and support needs of school personnel and school. Observation in the field by
trained personnel is essential for understanding schools and school education. If the education system relies only on cognitive testing to guide policy making it will have a
consequent effect on the relevance and quality of the resulting policies. For this reason it
Page 55 of 464
will be important to improve the skills of education researchers in qualitative data collection methodologies.
In addition, from a policy perspective it will be crucial for MoEC and MoRA to develop more effective performance management and appraisal processes that are used to provide data
about competence and performance. This type of information is essential for guiding decisions about how to allocate resources for professional development.
Before the team designed, developed and implemented the study we searched for studies about supervisor and principal competence in Indonesia. There was almost no data held by
the education system and the team could only find one quantitative study about supervisor competency which was conducted under an earlier AusAID program. Until this study was
completed there was virtually no reliable information available to education policy makers about principal and supervisor competency and their professional needs. This is a significant
deficiency as developing the capacity of principals is crucial for improving education outcomes in Indonesia. If policy is not based on evidence it runs the risk of being irrelevant
and wasting resources.
For this reason, even though this study only provided baseline data about competence and professional development needs, policy-makers are using the findings to guide decision-
making regarding future professional development for principals and supervisors. In addition, policy makers are committed to gathering ongoing data about principal and
supervisor competence. However, it is also clear that there is a significant opportunity for tertiary institutions to work in partnership with MoEC and MoRA to conduct further studies
about these important issues.
Also there is an urgent need in Indonesia to move beyond the collection of data about principal, supervisor and teacher competence and professional development priorities, and
to conduct studies that investigate the extent to which principal and teacher competence, a d p i ipals a d tea he s pa ti ipatio i p ofessio al de elop e t have an impact on
student learning outcomes. This information is essential to guide policy development and implementation yet there is little evidence that this type of research is being considered on a
national scale. This is a major challenge for education research in Indonesia and should be given high priority over the next ten years.
Another major issue for policy- ake s that as e phasised the stud s fi di gs as ho
to ensure that national policies are implemented throughout Indonesia. This is a particular challenge for Indonesia because of the numbers of schools and teachers, the geographic
dispersion of schools and teachers, and the extensive devolution of responsibility for the operation of schools to districts and foundations. As the study found,
Page 56 of 464
while the BSNP promulgated national standards for principals and supervisors, there were many districts that had not used the standards in any meaningful. Indeed there were many
principals who had never seen the standard let alone used it. Also, there had been no national effort to collect data about the relevance or applicability of the standards nor the
extent to which the standards were being achieved.
The challenge for national policy-makers is both to develop policies and practice that meet identified needs and to develop strategies to maximise their implementation at the district
and school levels. In the Australian context this achieved by governments linking resource allocations to policy implementation and the achievement of policy objectives and
outcomes.