Only one of the four officially decreed roles of school committee - mediate between the school and its community - was considered a criteria for an effective school committee. Even fund raising, an activity which probably requires much effort on the part of school committee, was not thought to be a sign of an effective school committee by a majority of respondents. Most appeared to be looking towards an ideal school committee in the future which has a broader remit than at present. Many felt that a good working environment was important along with a quality membership so that the school committee could work effectively together with the school and community to improve teaching learning.

2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

      School committees are an imported idea from the USA where schools have been run by their community since the 19th century. They have become a controversial institution in that country since as early as 1991 with a number of urban areas removing control for schools from the elected body and placing it directly under the elected mayor (Chaddock, 2002 ). These transfers were prompted by either financial or governance problems "... elected school boards conspicuously mismanaged funds ... for school construction. ... petty squabbles ... undermined public confidence in the capacity of local boards". The Economist in early 2003, reported the problems that poorer communities were having in New York with their school funds being mis-managed by the stronger interests who managed to be elected on to school boards. A second reason for changing from elected to selected members was to have more qualified people which were expected to lead to improvements in schools.

      These points need to be taken on board by MONE when finalizing its guidelines for school committees. The point about quality membership having an important role to play in raising school quality was not lost on stakeholders outlining their perceptions of what determines an effective school committee. Given the USA's experiences, it is better that the Indonesian methods of filling school committee places remain as they are, with only a few schools choosing to elect rather than select their members. In this way, communities can better guarantee the quality of their school committee, choosing the best or at least, well known people from the generally limited number of candidates available with knowledge of education issues.

      The emphasis of schools and their school committee plans and activities on physical and business/ fund raising rather than on education quality issues has been seen in other projects when funds were given directly to school staff and committees to manage. Examples include MONE's BOMM program and World Bank supported Junior Secondary Education (JSE) projects. This is not necessarily because school committee standards for education are not very high but rather that the standard concept of quality education encountered is different. This remains an unsettled controversy in most western countries anyway. For teachers, quality means obtaining approval for classroom activities from the school principal, supervisor and parents. For parents, it means that end-of-cycle test scores are high enough that their children can progress to the next school level and the ultimate goal of a paid job (rather than having to create one's own).

      Rather, this empahsis on the physical rather than quality aspects of schooling is probably because this was an area within their experience, and matched their education culture of "form" rather than substance. Plus of course the great need for renovation of many schools because of it not being a MONE priority until recently. It was only when the World Bank JSE project included a positive list of quality items and prioritized physical ones (pupil toilets, rehab classrooms) with higher weighting for the quality inputs that quality (and toilets!) were listed in school proposals for the projects matching grant funds. It would be welcomed if MONE guidelines also included a positive list of items to be included in school RAPBS.

      Another item which should be on such a positive list is the minimum inclusion of say 2 females (hopefully more) on school committee. While it could be argued that a positive list defeats the purpose of school and community decision making, the imposition of a school committee could be interpreted in much the same light too, undermining the professionalism of teaching.

      Finally, while MONE has been developing school committee guidelines, school committee have been learning how to operate in their changing world and defining their role for themselves. It is to be hoped that MONE guidelines do not undermine the progress that school committee have made in defining the concept for themselves to match their needs and the varying contexts in which they work.

Back

Home

Next