The Study di sini

Page 48 of 464 Diagram 1: Quantitative Sampling Process In the surveys, as well as providing self-ratings of their own competence:  supervisors were asked to rate the competence of their principals in the sample  principals were asked to rate the competence of their supervisors in the sample  teachers were asked to rate the competence of their principals and supervisors in the two samples. This approach enabled the team to cross-check the ratings of the different groups and check validity of self-ratings. To improve response rates principals, teachers and supervisor respondents for the different districts were brought together in one or two locations and completed the surveys at the same time with data collectors present to assist. ACDP met the cost of bringing the respondents to each of the locations. Page 49 of 464 The qualitative sample was a purposively selected sub-sample of the quantitative sample and comprised eighty-eight 88 schools and nineteen 19 district education offices. Qualitative data was collected from principals, teachers, parents, supervisors and heads of district education offices using interviews, focus group discussions, observation and document analysis. Some of the quantitative data from about 30 of districts were analysed prior to the conduct of the qualitative data collection. This enabled the team to identify key issues and to examine these in more detail during qualitative data collection. Table 1 provides an overview of the qualitative data collection. Table 1: Qualitative Data Collection Target Group Respondents Methodology Triangulation Supervisors Supervisors MoECMoRA PrincipalsMoECMoRA TeachersMoECMoRA Heads of District Education OfficeMoECMoRA One-day visit to districtsub- district for supervisors in sub- sample  Key Informant Interviews KII – Supervisor, Head of DistrictSub-District Education  Review of documentation  Focus Group Discussion FGD – Supervisors  Comparison with quantitative data  KII with district education heads  KII with sub-sample of schoolmadrasah principals during school field visits  FGDs with sub-sample of schoolmadrasah teachers during school field visits Principals PrincipalsMoECMoRA TeachersMoECMoRA School Committee SupervisorsMoECMoRA One-day field visit to each school in subsample  KII – principals  Structured school observation  Document analysis  FGD – teachers, parents  Comparison with quantitative data  FGDs with groups of teachers, parents school committee,  KII with supervisors during supervisor qualitative study The qualitative and quantitative data collection were conducted by more 150 approved personnel, mainly lecturers from six universities through their research centres. They were:  STAIN Syaikh Abdurrahman Siddik Bangka Belitung  Universitas SYAH Kuala UNSYAH - Aceh  Universitas Negeri Jakarta UNJ  Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia UPI Page 50 of 464  Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta UNY  IAIN – Surabaya qualitative only The ACDP team provided training and detailed implementation manuals for data collectors to improve the quality and reliability of data collection. All instruments were piloted and revised before the commencement of national data collection.

3. Study Findings

While the focus of this paper is not to present the findings of the study a summary of the main findings is presented to provide important data about the future challenges for education in Indonesia and to provide a context for the comments that follow about the relationship between research and policy development and implementation. In general, the findings from the quantitative and qualitative data analysis were similar. Most differences between the quantitative and qualitative findings could be attributed to the weaknesses in the survey methodology and these were discussed in some detail in the research report which should be available on-line through the ACDP website in the near future. The main findings are presented below. Profile of Respondents 1. There is a significant gender imbalance between the number of male and female principals and supervisors compared to the number of male and female teachers. Diagram 2: Gender of Supervisors and Principals Page 51 of 464 Diagram 3: Ratio of Male to Female Teachers – MoEC 2. Over 80 of the madrasah in the sample were private foundation madrasah and these madrasah had lower levels of BAN SM accreditation and their principals were rated significantly lower in competence on almost all indicators. 3. MoRA supervisors and principals tended to be younger and less experienced than MoEC counterparts when first appointed as principals or supervisors. More MoRA supervisors than MoEC supervisors were teachers when first appointed as supervisors. Supervisor Competency 1. Supervisors were most competent in the Personality and Social Dimensions 2. Supervisors were least competent in the Research and Development and Academic Supervision dimensions