This study is intended to understand teaching quality of English student teachers when they conduct their teaching practicum. Teaching quality is conceptualized based on the principles of effective teaching resulted by teacher effectiveness studies. Thes


IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    210  

 

 

From Bureaucratic-Centralism Management to School 
Based Management: Managing Human Resources in the 
Management of Education Program 
 

ASAD*  

 

Abstract  
 

Indonesia‘s education system used to be a centralized and bureaucratic mode as 
introduced by the Dutch as the colonial power. However, after the fall of Suharto‘s 
administration in May 1998, the Indonesian education policy has significantly 
transformed from centralization to decentralization - which is popularly known as 
school-based management (SBM). This change is because of the arrival of the Law 
No.22/1999 (later reviewed by the Law 32/2004) about ―Local Government‖ 
(provinces and districts). The purposes of this paper are first to discuss the 
characteristics of school-based management and the practices of SBM and second, to 
explore the motives of Indonesian government to apply school-based management in 
education in the digital era. The orienting question for this study is: Are all 
school-levels actors and district level actors ready for dealing with the characteristics of 
school-based management and the practices of SBM? Recommendations for 
education policy reform in the digital era in Indonesia for good governance are 
discussed, particularly the motives to move from bureaucratic-centralism 
management to school-based management. 

 
Keywords 
Bureaucratic-centralism management, digital era, school based management 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

* Associate Professor, UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi, Indonesia; e-mail: asadisma@uinjambi.ac.id  

mailto:asadisma@uinjambi.ac.id


IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    211  

 

 

 
Introduction 

 

Educational system around the world is managed by various approaches or ways 
such as a centralized, semi-centralized, and decentralized management. In the 1970s, 1980s, 
and 1990s, the concept of decentralization or self-management became a major trend in 
school reform. The transfer of decision making from higer (the center) to lower authirities in 
relation to budget and resource allocation, staff and students, and assesment reflects what is 
called a self-managed school (Caldwell & Spinks, 1992). A number of terms are 
interchangeably used to refer to the decentralized management including school-based 
management, school based governance, school self-management, and school site 
management (De Grauwe, 2005). Although the terms are different in meanings, they are all 
referring to allow schools to have more autonomy in decision making about their 
management including the use of their human, material, and financial resources. In the 
meantime, interest in educational reforms spreads around the world and school-based 
management (SBM) based on the decentralized method is one of the approaches that is 
voiced by educators and researchers. According to Oswald (1995), the decentralized 
management has begun to be applied in schools when educators and researchers detect 
dissatisfaction with the centralized authority. A dozen of definitions of school-based 
management (SBM) have been proposed by scholars and researchers. In general, 
school-based management is defined as the decentralization of decision-making authority to 
the school level (De Grauwe, 2005). It is one of the most popular strategies that began in the 
1980s school reform movement. Particularly, Caldwell (2005) defines school-based 
management as the decentralization system of authority to make decision on the school 
level. In school-based management; responsibilities are transmitted to authorities within the 
schools. 

Additionally, school-based management refers to increase in the involvement of 
parents, students, teachers, officials, principals and beneficiary groups of the community, and 
local organizations which may increase the independency, responsibility, and accountability 
of school (Moradi, Hussin, & Barzegar, 2012). School based-management involves the 
transfer of decision-making power on management in the school level (De Grauwe, 2005). 
Moreover, Malen et al. (1990) defines school based-management as follows; SBM can be 
viewed as an alternative of governance, as a decentralization form that identifies the 
individual school as the primary unit of improvement might be simulated and sustained. This 
definition mainly focuses on the change of authority of decision making from a central 
authority to the school site which it indicates of prime importance for the improvement of 
the school. However, the questions: what kinds of decision-making authority are 
decentralized or transferred to the school level? In response to the kinds of decision-making 
authority to school level, Leithwood and Menzies (1998) have proposed four types of 
decision-making authorityies: (1) administrative control in which every principal is dominant, 
(2) professional control in which the teacher corps receives the authority, (3) community 
control where the community or the parents, through a board, receive the authority, and (4) 
balanced control where the parents and the professionals (teachers and principal) are in 
balance for having the authority. The purposes of this paper are first to discuss the 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    212  

 

 

characteristics of school-based management and the practices of SBM and second, to explore 
the motives of Indonesian government to apply school-based management in education. The 
orienting question for this study is: Are all school-levels actors and district level actors ready 
for dealing with the characteristics of school-based management and the practices of SBM? 
 

Literature Review 
 
The characteristics of school-based management and the practices of SBM 
 
The characteristics of school-based management (decentralized) are different from 

the centralized management. The characteristics of SBM vary and depend on the 
implementation, practices, and processes. Generally, there are six areas or practices of SBM 
based on the literature related to SBM including (1) effective school leadership, (2) budget 
allocation, (3) management strategies, (4) staff development, (5) curriculum and instruction, 
and (6) resources. 

The effective school leadership, the roles of the principal and school staff and 
their relationships are very important in determining the success of SBM. Unlike leaders 
under a centralized system, leaders in SBM do not perform the same leadership roles at all 
times. The roles will vary according to the situations, tasks, and individuals that they work 
with. Accordingly, the new roles and responsibilities within SBM have required the principal 
to be an effective leader with a strong and positive instructional and administrative 
competence as well as a collaborative and collegial relationship. Sammons, Hillman, and 
Mortimore (1995) explain that there are several features of an effective leader. First, a leader 
develops goal by ―taking lead to establish vision and values to develop and set new goals, 
polices, plans and budgets‖ (p.13). Second, a leader is a manpower coordinator who 
―communicates, motivates, trains, supports, and encourages teachers‘ commitment and 
initiative to achieve school goals and find appropriate leadership roles for teachers‖ (p.21). 
Finally, a leader is a resource developer ―acquiring extra resources to promote school 
development‖ (p. 19). In this perspective, the leader helps create the conditions within which 
teachers and students take responsibility for their quality of teaching and learning and engage 
in leadership activities. Some scholars assert that distributed leadership contributes to a 
sustainable improvement of schools in terms of achieving higher levels of student 
achievement and teacher accountability. For example, a study done by Lindberg and 
Vanyushyn (2013) who  examined schools principals‘ perception of the importance of 
school-based management (SBM) and instructional leadership tasks and their assessment of 
the performance of those tasks in Swedish upper secondary schools by surveying 234 
principals of all upper secondary schools in Sweden. They found that 80% of administrative 
tasks were seen as highly important and performed well while 68% of instructional 
leadership tasks were perceived as of having lower importance and performance. 

With regard to the leadership role of the school principals in SBM, Botha (2006) did 
a case study in selected schools about leadership in school-based management in Gauteng 
Province, South Africa to conceptualize the important and pivotal leadership role of the 
school principal in ensuring school improvement via an effective school-based management. 
The primary goal of the study was to determine whether participants believed or not that 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    213  

 

 

effective leadership in SBM resulted in school improvement. It was also to examine school 
principals and educators perceptions of the relationship between SBM and school 
improvement, and the leadership role of the school principal. The study used a qualitative 
design with a case study approach. The samples for this study were four extremely divergent 
schools in Gauteng. Open-ended interviews were done in one day in each of the four 
schools with the school principal and two purposively selected teachers. The finding of the 
study indicated that schools that were most successful in implementation of SBM and school 
improvement efforts were those schools with empowered principals in making decision, and 
also trained for their new roles and provided with information to guide their decision 
making. The findings indicated that a school principal was the most important and essential 
stakeholder for an effective SBM. School principals in SBM required being more flexible in 
creating collaboration, higher level commitment, motivation, trust, ownership, and healthier 
school climate which would lead to greater productivity and increased student achievement. 
Additionally, the other important stakeholder in implementing SBM practices is teacher‘s 
role. The role of teachers in SBM has a great impact as it empowers teachers at the school to 
make decisions. SBM provides for better informed teachers and incentives (White, 1992). In 
SBM, teachers are allowed to share their decisions affecting them by getting teachers and 
principals to see each other as collaborators in making schools work effectively for students 
(Maeroff, 1988). However, teacher‘s participation in SBM requires them to assume duties in 
addition to usual teaching roles. Weiss, Cambone, and Wyeth (1992) claim that added duties 
make heavy demands on the teachers‘ time and call on teachers to undertake a variety of 
tasks that they have not previously been responsible for. For example, a study done by Yau 
and Cheng (2014) who examined the perceptions of 83 Hong Kong principals and 239 
teachers of the extent to which school-based management (SBM) had been effectively 
implemented in primary schools. They found that the most adopted elements of 
school-based management are ‗financial planning and control‘ and ‗leadership competence 
and work relationships‘. The moderate adopted element is ‗resources and accommodation‘. 
The least adopted element is staff coordination and effectiveness‘. In addition, there are 
significant differences between the perceptions of principals and teachers towards the areas 
of SBM. 

Budget allocation and management strategies, in SBM, budget allocation is one 
of the most crucial parts of SBM that should be delegated to school through the 
decentralization of budget. Budgeting decentralization means the allocation of funds in a 
lump sum rather than predetermined categories of expenditures (e.g. certain amount for 
books, a certain amount for salaries). The opportunity to spend money gives a school to 
achieve its goals (Cheng, 2004). Planning and budget control are the cores of SBM, and 
providing curriculum and staff is largely related to budget control (Lindelow, 1995). One of 
the problems of lack of SBM policy‘s proper implementation in the world is budgeting via 
schools. In the words of Haderman (1999), there is a weak relationship between budget 
decentralization performance in SBM and increasing student‘s progress. In order to support 
the priorities and programs in SBM, school and staff need to have some degrees of control 
over budget. According to Cheong (1996), decentralized budgeting may provide an 
important condition for schools to use resources effectively according to their own 
characteristics and needs to solve problems in time and pursue their own goals. 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    214  

 

 

The transition to SBM is a profound change, because it entails fundamental changes 
in people‘s understanding of the school structure and their roles and responsibilities. 
According to White (1989), the purpose of SBM is to make changes in traditional structures 
of authority, with new relationships between teachers and learners, administrators, and 
parents. It is not simply to reorganize administrative responsibilities. In a centralized system, 
the function of the ministry of education usually includes the overall planning, program 
implementation, coordination, personnel supervision, monitoring, and evaluation. However, 
in a decentralized system like in school-based management, the roles of the central ministry 
have changed from the implementer to the technical consultant and coordinator responsible 
for policy formulation, and overall quality assurance, monitoring, and evaluation. The role of 
the central office is more to consult than to supervise the school. Therefore, the head office is 
responsible for improving school performance under its supervision; on the other hand, they 
delegate some strength and authority to the school to make decisions in accordance with the 
interests of different school. 

Staff development, curriculum and instruction, and resources, another 
important area in SBM is staff development. Schools should be given an authority to select 
professional development activities that directly address their students‘ needs and fit in with 
the school‘s particular reform agenda. Lee and Smith (2001) claim that  a very high priority on 
professional development which is a line with school‘s reform agenda will be placed by 
successful schools, especially in developing knowledge in teaching, learning, curriculum, and 
assessment.  

In a centralized system, the function of the ministry of education usually includes the 
overall planning, program implementation, coordination, personnel supervision, monitoring, 
and evaluation, including the content of curriculum. However, in a decentralized one, school 
has an authority to make their own decision related to curriculum and instruction. When 
responsibility of curriculum and instruction are at school level, it will be a principal and 
teachers‘ duty for determining the changes to provide effective curriculum. In order to 
design an effective curriculum, teachers and administrators need to consider the interactions 
with teachers‘ competence to facilitate teacher‘s performance. On student‘s side, it should 
help students to gain more knowledge that appropriate with their needs so that they can 
produce expected educational outcome (Cheong, 1996).  

The appearance of SBM with its goals is to make better use of available resources at 
school level. Resources are essential tools for the school for changing teaching and learning 
practices. Resources may include money, personnel, space, time, building, and equipment.  In 
school-based management, principals and other stakeholders must ensure the allocation and 
usage of the educational resources to reach the goals, solve the problems and to make a 
decision that is appropriate with their own school characteristics and needs so that they have 
a better school. 

 
Methodology 

 
The method used was literature review (documentary work) which was done to 

systematically search internet resources, abstracts and databases including ERIC, British 
Library Direct, Academic Search Elite, Libris, Questia and High Beam and journal sources 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    215  

 

 

such as Elsevier, Emerald, Sage, ScienceDirect, and OpenDOAR related to the existing 
policies and practices, as well as other available literature related to school-based 
management. The data from documentary work were analyzed qualitatively and categorized 
to : (1) to find and list every source relevant to the school-based management and its 
practices, (2) to create clusters of every data from every source by grouping them into 
themes or meaning units; and (3) to remove or reduce overlapping and repetitive data.  

Findings and Discussion 

The practices of school-based management in several educational systems 

SBM programs have been implemented in many countries. Approximately 800 SBM 
programs that have been implemented in more than two dozen countries from Australia and 
the United States to Spain, Mexico, Cambodia, and Mozambique (World Bank, 2007).  
SBM has increasingly become a movement throughout the world autonomy to seek shared 
results and partnerships in the school community for the purpose of achieving school 
improvement. As a movement, SBM is considered as an effective system for empowering 
local schools in decision making (World Bank, 2007; Anderson, 2006; Vernez, Karam, & 
Marshal, 2012). There is a tendency to increase autonomy, responsibility for delegation, and 
encourage responsiveness to local needs with the aim of improving performance level. 
However, the experience of implementing SBM programs in several countries shows that it's 
not a quick fix. SBM has been promoted by several educational systems around the world 
that want to greater local autonomy and control of schools with the aim of increasing the 
efficiency and effectiveness of their school education. For example, in the mid-1970s, 
Canada started introducing SBM which is generally known as ‗School-site decision-making.‖ 
Through this policy, in 1980-81, seven pilot schools were involved in the decentralization of 
the allocation of resources for teaching and non-teaching staff, equipment, supplies and 
services. ‗School-site decision-making‖ focused on financial delegation of resources to 
schools through school-based budgets and formula funding. Now, this SBM is now 
institutionalized. 

In Hong Kong, initial educational reforms focused on expanding the system, and on 
improving the teaching and learning facilities. In 1991, Hong Kong Department of 
Education initiated School Management Initiative (SMI) which gave schools more flexibility 
in the use of their resources, while allowing greater involvement by teachers, parents, and 
former students in decision-making.  Reforms to the education system in the UK consisted 
of several models: a national curriculum, a performance based testing system linked to the 
national curriculum, student choice of school, and local school management (LSM) that 
decentralized the bulk of the budget to school sites and provided schools with the authority 
to recruit and select staff. These systems gave more autonomy and flexibility in 
decision-making to the local community, leading to more accountability to the parents, 
employers and the wider community. A similar reform was also introduced in New Zealand 
which was based on the results of task force made by the Prime Minister (David Lange) to 
review the administration of education in October 1987. In the USA, the approach to SBM 
has been more localized as ever state implemented different strategies in improving its 
educational system. SBM was in some states linked to an accountability system tied to 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    216  

 

 

student performance, but not in others. Two kinds of SBM were (1) ‗administrative 
decentralization‘, in which the central office of an LEA designates certain tasks that are 
carried out by school-site teachers and principals and (2) ‗site-based management‘, a 
structure that empowers parents, teachers, and principals in each school building to set their 
own priorities, to allocate their budget accordingly, to shape their curriculum, and to hire and 
fire personnel. Although there are many reform movements in process today in the USA, 
one of the most rapid developments in recent years is that of the ‗charter schools‘. The 
charter was a clear written agreement between a group of teachers and the school district to 
reorganize some part of the instructional programme. In some non-English-speaking 
countries, the experiences varied from local control and management delegation to financial 
delegation and autonomy. 

Models and approaches of school-based management 

SBM in some educational systems has been adopted to give power for principals and 
teachers by devolution of authority. This kind of management is used to increase their 
accountability and commitment to create a better school environment that will improve the 
school‘s quality. Under the school-based management, teaching and non-teaching staff play 
an active part in decision making at the school level which will let them become a part of 
decision making process. Additionally, school-based management will create such financial 
control which will let teachers to be likely to accept responsibility for the financial decisions 
for the schools. SBM program differs on several dimensions: the level of authority delegated 
to schools, the domains over which school-level decision makers have discretion, the groups 
of stakeholders involved in decision-making bodies, and the purposes served by school level 
decision-making bodies (Ogawa & White, 1944). There are several different models to 
determine who is investing with the power to make decisions in every SBM reform. Some 
general models are defined by Ogawa and White (1994) as follows: (1) community control 
which implies school community governance, (2) administrative decentralization which 
implies a dominant role for teachers and headmaster, (3) main controls where the locus of 
authority is placed with the principal.  

Additionally, Leithwood and Menzies (1998) suggested the following four models: 
(1) administrative control: SBM transfers the power to the principal. This model aims to 
make everyone responsible for the district or council office. The benefits of SBM include in 
increasing efficiency in personnel and curriculum and making one person in each school 
more responsibility to the central authority. (2) Professional control: SBM transfers the main 
decision-making authority to the teacher. This model aims to increase teachers' knowledge of 
what the school needs at the class level. Participating in the decision-making process can also 
motivate teachers to perform better and can lead to larger customers and effectiveness in 
teaching. (3) Community control: SBM transfers the main decision-making authority to 
parents or the community. Under this model, teachers and principals are assumed to be 
more responsive to the needs of parents. Another benefit is that the curriculum can reflect 
local needs and preferences. (4) Balanced control: SBM balances decision-making authority 
between parents and teacher, who are the two main stakeholders in any school. This is the 
goal to take advantage teacher knowledge about school to improve school management and 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    217  

 

 

make the school more responsible to parents. These school-based management models are 
used differently in every educational system around the world are collection of these model. 
In general, in SBM programs, community representatives appear on the school committee. 
However, in many cases, members of the community are involved in it ways that do not 
complicate the role of the principal and teacher.  

Research on international practices on SBM 

SBM programs have been implemented in many countries. In this section, the 
discussion centers on reviewing research articles that look intothe practices of school-based 
management around the world. One of the previous studies related to the practices of 
school-based management in American, Canadian, and Australian done by Wholstetter, 
Kirk, Robertson, and Mohrman (1997). The study was designed to determine how 
School-Based Management could work to improve the performance of schools. The study 
examined American, Canadian, and Australian schools that exhibited a range of success in 
restructuring curriculum and instruction and improving performance. The study had 
involved  40 schools that had implemented  SBM for at least 3 years. They conducted 
various interviews with over 400 school-community members. The study presented findings 
from the interviews and from the archival and survey data collected during site visits. They 
used an organizational framework as their lens to examine the differences between actively 
restructuring and struggling schools. They found that certain organizational situations were 
strongly related to greater organizational learning and integrating processes. They also found 
that decentralized management operatedbest when the following four organizational 
resources were available to the decentralized unit: power, knowledge and skills, information, 
and rewards. Three other organizational situations were also crucialfor explaining the 
differences between actively restructuring schools and struggling schools: an instructional 
guidance mechanism, leadership, and resources. Wholstetter, Kirk, Robertson, and 
Mohrman (1997) concluded that  (1) Actively restructuring schools had more of the 
situationsin place that encourageorganizational learning and integrating processes; (2) the 
existence of these organizational learning and integrating processes facilitate more innovative 
teaching practices; and (3) consequently, the existenceof organizational situations facilitate 
schools to adopt more innovative teaching practices, both directly and indirectly. Finally, the 
transition to SBM necessitatespervasive and deep changes (change in almost all aspects of 
the organizations and a fundamental change in people's understanding). 

Another study related to school-based management was done by Agyemang  (2008) 
who focused on looking at the formula funding in the UK school Sector. Using the 
qualitative approach, this study analysed the interview data obtained from eight senior 
managers, the Director of Education, and three primary school head teacher. The findings of 
this study revealed that power relations between the users and the providers of funds impact 
on the extent to which service providers needs are incorporated into the funding formula. In 
1995, a qualitative case study was done by Brandao (1995) who looked at the effects of 
school-based management on the worklife of elementary teachers. This study involved 33 
educators in Florida. The results showed that the effects of restructuring were varied and 
included both positive and negative findings. For some teachers, involvement enhanced 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    218  

 

 

commitment to the organization and spurred them on to further efforts, while for most 
respondents restructuring activities were perceived as impositions that made it difficult to 
balance classroom and SBM responsibilities. Respondents also revealed that they doubted 
the potential of SBM as a means to improve the quality of education at Florida County 
Schools or as a process for producing significant academic achievements. A qualitative study 
was done by Cranston (2001) in order to examine some issues; 1) the impact of school-based 
management on primary principals in Queensland, identifies particular challenges for 
principals in terms of their skill and capacities in moving to more collaborative and inclusive 
decision-making regimes. 2) Studying two primary schools operating under SBM that 
examines how and in what areas of the school (planning, operation, curriculum), parents and 
teachers are engaging in school-level decisions-making. This study involved 2 or 3 teachers 
and 2 or 3 parents in each school. Based on the interview, it revealed that the principals 
should demonstrate leadership skills and capacities that facilitate such involvement.  
Schools were really going through learning and maturing process in their journey towards 
greater parents and teacher involvement in decision-making in school. Both teachers and 
parents acknowledged they needed skill development as part of this process. A 
quasi-experimental study was done by Umansky and Vegas (2007) who looked at the effect 
of school-based management in improving students learning. This study involved 3 
school-based management reforms in Central America. The analysis result of the three 
Central American Reforms indicated that school-based management reforms can have varied 
impacts on students learning. The evidence indicates that all three reforms resulted in 
substantive changes in management and teacher characteristics and behavior and that these 
changes explain significant portions of resultant changes in student learning. 

The practice of school-based management has been done in some developing 
countries. Al-Ghefeili, Ghani, & Elham (2014) conducted a study to investigate the views of 
school community regarding school-based management as a management tool in Oman. A 
qualitative design with a multiple case study has been distributed to the principal; principal‘s 
assist ands, senior teachers, and teachers in selected schools. Based on the interview data, it 
is found that The school stakeholders especially principals have different view toward the 
implementation of the SBM, senior teacher perceived that he has more negative about SBM 
system because he claimed that SBM gave the teacher more work. In addition, the study on 
the school-based management was also done by Bandur (2012). The study was done in order 
to examine the SBM policy reform in Indonesia. It emphasized on the impact of shifting 
authority and responsibility to school level as well as the challenge in the implementation of 
SBM confronted by the school council members and remedial measures to minimize the 
problems. This study involved all school primary schools in Ngada Disrtict and 32 schools in 
rural area. It also involved 42 interviews. The findings indicated that the implementation of 
SM in Indonesia needs to be shifted adequate power and authority from central government 
to school councils. Additionally, Blimpo, Evans, and Lahire (2014) conducted study to 
evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive school-based management and capacity 
building program which is called Whole School Development (WSD).  The study used 
experimental research design with the observation, written literacy and numeracy test, 
students‘ interview and oral literacy test, and teacher and headmaster interview. The result 
indicated that no effect of WSD on learning outcomes and no effect on test scores. In 1995, 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    219  

 

 

a study was conducted by Heck and Brandon to investigate how the purposeful reform of 
school-decision making responsibilities affects teacher participation and leadership in 
selecting critical needs to address during the school improvement process. This study is done 
by involving 151 teachers in nine elementary schools in the first study and 212 teachers in 
four elementary schools in the second study. As the secondary data, interviews were also 
conducted with administrators and teachers who had taken leadership roles during the 
process. The finding indicate that involvement in the process of setting up decision making 
and selecting the content of school needs affect teacher‘s agreement with selected needs. 
Moreover, teacher expertise and leadership opportunities were found as an effect of 
participation in school decision making. The study about school-based management is also 
done by Candra (2012) in order to find out the effectiveness of CIPP components (context, 
input, process, and product) in the implementation of SBM in SMK Negeri 3 Singaraja. The 
evaluative study used questionnaires, interviews and documentation which involved the 
principal, staffs and administrators as the participant of the study. The result showed that 
school-management implementation was effective. David (2015) conducted a study using an 
exploratory sequential design to paint a holistic picture of a successful aided secondary 
school which achieves its vision, mission, core value and goals, and most importantly, 
sustains success for all its students. In depth interview was done to 20 experienced senior 
teachers and 103 teacher managers in secondary school in Hongkong. The finding indicated 
that SBM implementation did not improve students‘ learning outcomes yet, but it had 
produced various positive impacts on IMC schools. A historical research was conducted by 
De Grauwe (2005) in order to define SBM and its view of its implementation in different 
world regions. This study aim in examine the advantages and disadvantages. Particularly, this 
study explores the strategies in school-based management implementation in order to ensure 
a positive impact on quality. The finding indicated that school-based management 
implementation need to be accompanied by strategies to build capacities of schools, 
head-teacher s and communities, motivated by a clear focus on quality improvement and a 
concern for equity. Al Kaabi (2015) conducted a study on the evaluation of the school-based 
management practices in the new school model. 1345 staffs from 17 cycle 1 school and 11 
kindergartens participated in this quantitative study.  This study also investigated the 
influence of staff position on the practices of the SBM and identified the main areas of SBM 
which need improvement. The finding showed that the staffs have authority in decision 
making especially in in school development plan, another finding related to questions 
number two indicate that there was no significant difference between the practices of the 
teacher and another administrators and the teachers should involve in curriculum decision 
making because they understand more their students and they know what should they 
improve related to their students. 

In addition, a qualitative research was conducted by Karam, Vernes, and Marshall 
(2012) in order to examine how autonomy and accountability under school-based 
management implementation in Indonesia at the national and how they are associated with 
intermediary and students outcomes. This study involved four hundred elementary public 
schools from among 54 districts in Indonesia. The finding of this study were; 1) Principals‘ 
and teachers‘ lack of knowledge and preparedness about taking risks making independent 
decisions, 2) Both teachers‘ and principals‘ lack of knowledge and preparedness about taking 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    220  

 

 

risk to make independent decisions, 3) Both principals and teachers felt that they didn‘t 
receive enough support and training on SBM and how to make school performance 
improvement. Finally, SBM should be used to improve students‘ achievement by upgrading 
principal and teacher capacity so they can make their own operational and instructional 
decisions by providing them higher quality and comprehensive SBM-related leadership 
training and professional development. In 2013, a quantitative survey design was done by 
Kiragu, King‘oina, and Migosi (2013).The study was designed toto find out what the 
principals and teachers perceived were the prospects of school-based management (SBM), 
the accrued benefits of SBM and challenges schools would experience if SBM was 
introduced in Murang‘a South district. This study involved 16 principals and 64 teachers. 
The result showed that the principals and teachers perceived that if SBM introduce in 
secondary school it will give positive impact that many aspects would change and there 
would be increased accountability and transparency, efficient use of resources, improved 
decision making, timely syllabus coverage and timely procurement of resources and this also 
help to improve quality of education. Another quantitative study was done by Lindberg and 
Vanyushyn (2013) to 234 principals of all upper secondary schools in Sweden. This study 
sets out to examine schools principals‘ perception of the importance of school-based 
management (SBM) and instructional leadership tasks and their assessment of the 
performance of those tasks in Swedish upper secondary schools. The result showed that 
analysis of the survey responses from 234 principals shows that 80% of administrative and 
75% of fire-fighting tasks were seen as highly important and performed well, while 68% of 
instructional leadership tasks were perceived as of having lower importance and 
performance. Levačić (1998) did a study about Local management of schools in England. 
Aim of this study was to reviews the evidence on the impact of six years of local 
management of schools in England. The findings of the research on the impact of local 
management, in particular the lack of firm evidence of consequential improved educational 
outcomes for pupils, are then interpreted in terms of the theoretical basis of local 
management. 

The application of School-Based Management in Iran's Secondary Schools done by 
Mehralizadeh, Sepacy, and Atashfeshan (2006).The study was designed to recognize the main 
barriers of school- based management (SBM) in Iran in general, and in public secondary 
schools of Ahvaz, in particular. The study examined 40 Secondary school principals, 200 
teachers and 40 local education authorities. This study indicated five main factors such as 
management, information and knowledge, structure and organization, cultural, power and 
political issues are the main barriers to running the SBM in secondary schools in Iran. They 
found that the new scheme of SBM compared to the present system of education in 
secondary schools differs in three main areas: the office of the administrative affairs is now 
working under the supervision of the school council which has authority over the hiring and 
firing of the principal; the vetoing power over the principal‘s sanctions against students, (but 
they do not have the right and the authority to modify the obligations, rights and sanctions 
established for the principal, the student and the teacher by the Ministry of Education). 
Furthermore, the barriers faced in implementation of SBM were management barriers, 
information and knowledge barriers, structural and organizing barriers, cultural barriers and 
power and political barriers. While Yau and Cheng (2014) did a quantitative study about 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    221  

 

 

Principals and Teachers‘ perceptions of School-Based Management in Hong Kong. This 
study involved 322 respondents; consisting of 83 principals and 239 teachers. The aim of 
this study was to examine the perceptions of a sample of Hong Kong principals and teachers 
of the extent to which school-based management (SBM) has been effectively implemented in 
primary schools. The finding shows that all four features of school-based management are 
perceived as being implemented in Hong Kong primary schools, but the degree of their 
implementation is not the same. The most adopted elements of school-based management 
are ‗financial planning and control‘ and ‗leadership competence and work relationships‘. The 
moderate adopted element is ‗resources and accommodation‘. The least adopted element is 
‗staff coordination and effectiveness‘. In addition, there are significant differences between 
the perceptions of principals and teachers towards the areas of SBM. Another study related 
to school-based management was done by Kuncoro (2008).    Who focused on Principal, 
teachers and administrators also community who understand the role of principal using 
qualitative interview, documentation and field observation and used the previous studies to 
support this study. The aim of this study was to know and describe the role of principal in 
the implementation of SBM in Madrasah Tsanawiyah NegeriPiyungan Yogyakarta. The 
findings of this study revealed that The principal of MTs n Piyungan less intensive explicit 
when did the seminar related to the implementation of SBM, the principal did not 
understand about the SBM and how to implement it, the principal played the important role 
in extracurricular activity than in regular or curricular activity and the principal less intensive 
as educator, facilitator, motivator and innovator. 

Education policy reform: The motives of Indonesian government to apply 
school-based management in education 

Indonesia‘s education system used to be a centralized and bureaucratic mode as 
introduced by the Dutch as the colonial power. In addition, in the Old Order (Sukarno‘s 
regime) and in the New Order Regime (a 32 year of Suharto‘s regime), Indonesian education 
system was still dominated by a centralized system of administration. However, after the 
collapse of Suharto‘s regime in May 1998, the Indonesian education policy has significantly 
changed from centralization to decentralization - which is popularly known as school-based 
management (SBM). This change is because of the arrival of the Law No.22/1999 (later 
reviewed by the Law 32/2004) about ―Local Government‖ (provinces and districts). Both 
laws describe the key relationship between the central government and local governments in 
their powers and authorities with regard to education. The terms of decentralization and 
school-based management are very popular in Indonesia because of educational policy 
reforms after the downfall of New Order Regime in May 1998. Decentralization means ―to 
disperse away from a central point‖ (Lauglo, 1996, p.18) and school based management 
refers to the decentralization of authority from the central government to the school level 
(Caldwell, 2005). World Bank (2008) notes that school-based management is the strategy to 
decentralize education decision-making by increasing parental and community involvement 
in schools. Thus, in school level, decision-making authority and school operations are 
transferred to principals, teachers, and parents, and sometimes to students and other school 
community members. Nationally, the central government has introduced the idea of 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    222  

 

 

educational decentralization when the government issued the Law No.22/1999 (later 
reviewed by the Law No. 32/2004) about ―Local Government‖, which was officially 
implemented in January 2001. Both laws have logical consequences that educational 
administration, management and leadership, goals, budgets, personnel, curriculum, and 
structure should be adapted to the soul and the spirit of autonomy. It means in the era of 
autonomy,‖ the former bureaucratic notions, based on hierarchical positional powers within 
a single school system, are now outmoded‖ (Chapman, 1996). Therefore, the so-called 
central-based educational management that had been practiced in the Indonesian education 
system for long time should be changed into school-based management.  

The motives of most governments to apply school-based management aim at both 
improving the financing and delivery of education services and increasing the quality and 
quantities (enrollment) in education (World Bank, 2008). In Indonesia, the central 
government wants to give, principals, teachers, parents, and communities broader 
opportunities to take part in the management of education program and at the same time, it 
can ease the burdens of the central government financially and operationally by giving more 
authorities to local governments and schools to arrange their schools to meet local needs 
(Minister of National Education, 2004). Eliason (1996) says that decentralization refers to 
have greater citizen participation, influence, and greater local autonomy in order to meet 
local needs and demands. In other words, Indonesian Government has been decentralizing 
the control of education systems in an effort to lower costs, overcome unmanageable central 
bureaucracies, and to provide young people a better education and give local government 
officials and schools much greater scope to decide how to meet those goals. 

However, the success of school-based management practices at school level depends 
on how ready all school-levels actors and district level actors work on it. As discussed earlier, 
the centralized education system had been practiced for more than 53 years from the Old 
Order (Sukarno‘s regime) to the New Order Regime (Suharto‘s regime). Hence, it is not 
considerably easy to change all those actors‘ mind and work habits. They are still used to 
working with a centralized system, in particular, principals and educational administrators. 
For example, principals still depend on the upper actors such as central and provincial 
governments and district levels to make key decisions and school programs. The second 
problem is parents and communities are not accustomed to involving in making decisions at 
school level. In Indonesia, it is common for parents (not in big cities) to come to school 
every six months when they will take a final report of their children‘s progress. Teachers are 
not qualified and competent to teach is also the third major problem to reach the goals of 
SBM in terms of student achievement. For instance, the total number of elementary school 
teachers and headmasters as of 2005/2006 was 1,567,157 and 84.70% of elementary school 
teachers do not meet the education ministry‘s basic requirement that is completion of 
bachelor degrees (Ministry of National Education, 2008). This will also influence their ability 
and capacity of involving in making school programs. The last problem, but not the least, is 
community participation such as representatives of parents, community members, and 
education councils is not that high like in western countries. 

 
 
 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    223  

 

 

 
Conclusions 

 
The purposes of this paper are first to discuss the characteristics of school-based 

management and the practices of SBM and second, to explore the motives of Indonesian 
government to apply school-based management in education in the digital era. To conclude, 
decentralization and school-based management in Indonesia‘s education system have 
become the means to decentralize the authority from the central government to the school 
level (Caldwell, 2005), to improve the financing and delivery of education services and 
increase the quality and quantities, to give parents and communities broader opportunities to 
take part in education. At the same time, the success of SBM is overly reliant on how well all 
school and district actors put it into practices and change their work habits from a 
centralized to decentralized practice. 

 
 
Disclosure statement 

 
The author declares no conflict of interest in this study. . 

References 

Agyemang, G. (2008). Accounting for needs? Formula funding in the UK School Sector. 
Working Paper Series. 

Al Kaabi, S. A. A. (2015). An evaluation of the school-based management practices in the new school model 
:A study on Al Ain schools. Theses. United Arab Emirates University. 

Al-Ghefeili, A. A., Ghani, M. F. A., & Elham, F. (2014). School-based management in Oman 
:School community‘s views and understanding. Global Business and Economics Research 
Journal, 3(1), 55-67. 

Anderson, W. (2006). Site-based management. In S. C. Smith, & P. K. Piele, School Leadership: 
Handbook for Excellence in Student Learning (pp. 223-244). London: SAGE Publications. 

Bandur, A. (2012). Decentralization and school-based management in Indonesia. Asia Pacific 
Journal of Educational Development, 1(1), 33-47. 

Blimpo, M. P., Evans, D. K.,  & Lahire, N. (2014). School-based management and 
educational outcomes lessons from a randomized field experiment. JEL Classification, 
015, I21, C93. 

Botha, N. (2006). Leadership in school-based management: A case study in selected schools. 
South African Journal of Education, 26(3), 341–353. 

Brandao, F. R. (1995). The effects of school-based management on the worklife of 
elementary teachers: a case study. Dissertation, University of North Florida. 

Caldwell, B. J. (2005). School-based management. Education Policy Series. Paris: The 
International Institute for Educational Planning. 

Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school. London: Falmer Press. 
Candra , I. W. (2012). Studi evaluatif implementasi penerapan manajemen berbasis sekolah di 

SMK Negeri 3 Singaraja, Kabupaten Buleleng, Propinsi Bali. Tesis, Administrasi 
Pendidikan, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha. 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    224  

 

 

Chapman, J. (1996). A new agenda for a new society. In International Handbook of Educational 
Leadership and Administration, pp. 419 – 445. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. 

Cheng, A. [Lai-Fong] (2004). School-based management and quality management in Hong 
Kong primary schools. University of Leicester. 

Cheng, Y. [Cheong] (1996). School effectiveness & school-based management: A mechanism for 
development. London: Flamer Press. 

Cranston. N. C. (2001). Collaborative decision making and school-based management: 
Challenges, rhetoric and reality. J. Educ. Enquiry, 2(1), 21-30. 

David, W. T. W. (2015). Investigating school-based management in Hongkong to validate the prerequisites 
for successful schools using an exploratory sequential design, thesis, the Hong Kong Institute of 
Education. 

De Grauwe, A. (2005). Improving the quality of education through school-based 
management: Learning from international experiences. International Review of Education, 
51(4), 269-287. 

Eliason, L. C. (1996). Educational decentralization as a policy strategy in an era of fiscal 
stress, in Chapman, J. D., Boyd, W. L., Lander, R., and Reynolds, The Reconstruction of 
Education, Quality, Equality, and Control. London: Redwood Books Limited. 

Haderman, M. (1999). School-based budgeting: Eric Digest, 131. 
Heck, R., & Brandon, P. (1995). Teacher empowerment and the implementation of school‐

based reform.  Empowerment in Organizations, 3(4), 10-19. 
Kiragu J. W., King‘oina J. O &Migosi J. A (2013). School-based management Prospects and 

challenges: A case of public secondary schools in Murang‘a south district, Kenya. 
International Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(5), 1166-1179. 

Kuncoro G. (2008). Peran kepala sekolah dalam impelementasi manajemen berbasis sekolah di MTs 
Negeri Piyungan Yogyakarta Indonesia. Thesis. UIN Sunan Kalijaga. 

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence: What 
works. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 766-767. 

Levačić R. (1998). Local management of schools in England: Results after six years. Journal of 
Education Policy, 13(3), 331-350. 

Leithwood K., & Menzies T. (1998). A review of research concerning the implementation of 
site-based management. School effectiveness and school improvement, 9(33), 233-285. 

Lindberg, E., & Vanyushyn, V. (2013). School-based management with or without 
instructional leadership: Experience from Sweden. Journal of Education and Learning, 
2(3), 39-50. 

Lindelow, J. (1995). School-based management. In Murphy, J, and Beak, L. G (Eds.), 
school-based management as school reform: Taking stock, pp.120-135, California: Gornwin. 

Lauglo, J. (1996). Forms of decentralization and their implications for education, in 
Chapman, J. D., Boyd, W. L., Lander, R., and Reynolds, The Reconstruction of Education, 
Quality, Equality, and Control. London: Redwood Books Limited. 

Maeroff, G. I. (1988). The empowerment of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Malen, B., Ogawa, R.T., Kranz, J., Clune, W.H., & Witte, J.F. (1990). What do we know about 

school-based management: A case study of the literature—A call for research. Choice 
and control in American education, 2, 289-342. 



IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| 
|Vol. 5| No. 1|June|Year 2021| 

 

 

|E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index|    225  

 

 

Mehralizadeh, Y., Sepacy, H., & Atashfeshan, F. (2004). Globalization and decentralization of 
management: A study of the feasibility of application of school-based management in Iran’s  
secondary schools. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52(1), 84-98. 

Ministry of National Education. (2008). The number of teachers by level of education and 
province as of 2005/2006. Jakarta: Ministry of National Education.  

Ministry of National Education (2005). Law for lectures and teachers no. 14/2005. Jakarta: Ministry 
of National Education. 

Ministry of National Education (2005). Regulation No.19/2005. Jakarta: Ministry of National 
Education. 

Ministry of National Education (2004). Country Report-Quality Education for All Young 
People: Challenges, Trends, and Priorities in Indonesia. Paper presented at 47th 
International Conference on Education, Geneva, Switzerland, 8-11 September 2004. 

Ministry of Home (2004). Law no.32/2004. Jakarta: Ministry of Home. 
Ministry of National Education (2003). Law for education No.20/2003. Jakarta: Ministry of 

National Education. 
Moradi, S., Bin Hussin, S., & Barzegar, N. (2012). School-based management (SBM), 

opportunity or threat (education systems of Iran). Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 
69, 2143 —2150. 

Ogawa, R. T., & White, P. A. (1994). School-based management: An overview. In S. A. 
Mohrman, P. Wohlstertter, & Associates, school-based management organizing for high performance. 

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 
Oswald, L. J. (1995). School-based management: Rationale and implementation guidelines. 

Document Resume. Oregon School Study Council, 7(38). 
Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A Review 

of School Effectiveness Research. Institute of Education, University of London: London. 
Vernez, G., Karam, R., & Marshal, J. H. (2012). Implementation of school-based management in 

Indonesia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 
Weiss, C. H.,  Cambone, J., & Wyeth, A. (1992). Trouble in paradise: Teacher conflicts in 

shared decision making. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 350-367. 
White, P. A. (1989). An overview of school-based management: What does the research 

say?" NASSP BULLETIN 73, 518. 
White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under ideal school-site autonomy. Educational 

Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 14, 69-82.  
Wholstetter, P., Kirk, A., Robertson, P., & Mohrman, S. (1997). Organizing for successful 

school-based management.  Alexandria, Virginia, USA: Association for Supervision 
and Curriculum Development. 

World Bank Report. (2007). What do we know about school-based management?  Washington, DC: 
The World Bank. 

Yau, H. K., & Cheng A. L. F. (2014). Principals and teachers‘ perception of school-based 
management. International Education Research, 2(1), 44-59. 
 
Biographical note 
Dr. ASAD is an associate professor at UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi, 

Indonesia; e-mail: asadisma@uinjambi.ac.id  

mailto:asadisma@uinjambi.ac.id