The desire to improve the quality of public senior secondary schools in Indonesia has been the primary focus of the Senior Secondary Education Project (ADB Loan # 1360 INO). The project emphasis on the development of facilities, preparation of instruction materials and consultant support in the areas of curriculum implementation, textbook development, examination system upgrading, upgrading for in-service teacher education, upgrading teacher management, improving academic supervision, preventive maintenance, redesigning and implementing language lab programs, and developing models of secondary school development and operation management.

The original consultancy for model secondary school development required the creation of several school models for specific needs. However, the team of consultants deployed for this activity met with DSE officials and all agreed that the old concept of model school was an ineffective way to address school development. A new concept of a model for "school development" grew out of discussions with international and national consultants with DSE officers. The traditional "model" concept depends on identifying a good or outstanding school and then by adding inputs (money, training, facilities, and learning resources) create a model of excellence that could then be replicated in other schools. The most obvious problem with this approach is that typical schools find it difficult developing into good schools let alone a model school. Secondly, unless similar inputs are applied to typical schools, the replicability of the model will not be facilitated. See Appendix A for elaboration on this issue.

As an alternative, those involved with the discussions on model schools opted to chart a different path in conceptualizing a "model" of school development. Visits to schools in different areas of the country by the consultants yielded a wealth of information on initiatives by SMUs to address local school needs. These efforts in innovativeness demonstrated that the capacity to improve the quality of schools was based at the school level. From this realization, it was obvious to the consultants that schools that have experienced growth and development would best represent a school development model. The focus was on the "process" that schools experienced when the quality of education improved. What happens to schools internally that creates a shift toward more effective schooling? From this perspective a school development "model" concept emerged. Our attention was directed toward identifying what happens in schools that experience growth / development.

To address this question on the "process" of change, the consultants proposed to study a small number of schools that experienced growth. By conducting research on these schools, the consultants hoped to find some common attributes that could be used for a model on school development or what could be called a " change model". Assuming that there was some common attributes among the schools, these characteristics could be developed into a model for other schools. If so, then the model would be one based on real experiences in Indonesian schools, something that would be replicable and feasible for other schools.

Eight SMUs in West, Central, and East Java were selected that had exhibited some level of growth in the previous year or two. A team of consultants conducted intensive interviews with the headmasters, deputy headmasters, teachers, parents, students and community leaders (see appendix B for schools participating in the program and Appendix C for interview questions). In some cases representatives from the Kandep were also interviewed. After all the schools were interviewed, the data was summarized and compared for common experiences.

All schools appeared to have been either ineffective or simply surviving before the current headmasters arrived. Previous school development was limited to small improvements in the facilities. In all cases, the new head master conducted an assessment on the conditions at the school and either formally or informally formulated goals for the school. To accomplish these goals however, some basic underlying characteristics for school development were observed. The following characteristics describe the common themes learned from the eight "school development" models (SDM).

More Open Communication: in general communication among stakeholders increased from previous experiences. There were different levels of openness and approaches to communication in the schools. In some schools, all concerns and issues were brought to the attention of the stakeholders through meetings, informal discussions, and letters (to parents) or through regular school activities (Monday morning ceremony for example). In other schools the frequency and opportunity for feedback was less, although the stakeholders felt that the situation was better than before. The more open / transparent the communication, the more positive the stakeholders felt about the school. This appears to have created a strong foundation for supporting school development through stakeholder participation.

Shared-decision making: in general stakeholders experienced more decision-making responsibility. The degree to which decision-making was shared among the stakeholders varied from school to school. All stakeholders experienced an increase in decision-making responsibility than was previously allowed. The stakeholders felt more involved in the process and believed that the headmaster valued their opinions. A hierarchy of decision-making was established that identified who and what decisions the different stakeholders allowed.

Addressing Teacher Needs: the interest and ability of the school to address these concerns provided teachers with some level of motivation. Teacher's needs included personal welfare, professional development and instructional support. If teacher's welfare was addressed, teachers could focus more attention on instruction. Teachers were supported for upgrading qualifications to S1 levels and encouraged to pursue additional studies beyond S1. Support from headmasters on civil servant promotion criteria and professional development needs communicated to the teachers that they were important to meeting the educational goals of the school. Finally, some schools provided direct support for instruction by allocating funds for instructional materials, library development and allowing teachers to be more creative in the classroom.

Addressing Student Needs: schools that concern themselves with student needs found greater acceptance by students, parents, and community. Student needs involved improving instruction, providing additional instructional time for EBTANAS preparation, adding interesting extra-curriculum activities, including students in decision-making issues concerning them, and developing training programs (extra-curriculum) for preparation of employable skills. All SDM believed that schools needed to be a place that students enjoyed being there. By providing interesting and skills developing extra-curriculum activities, the students were more motivated to attend school. One significant outcome, when student's needs are addressed, is that students from other sub-districts were attracted to these schools.

Integration of School into Community: schools played an important social role in the community. Community in this context includes the parents of the students as well as the local community (society). BP3 was the primary means for exchange between schools and the parents. Typically, the headmaster recommendations were reviewed in BP3 meetings and the members voted on recommendations they wish to support as a priority issue and financially. The headmaster's recommendations were based on his/her concerns, but reflected the thoughts of teachers, students, parents and community. The stakeholders concerns were communicated formally through meetings (such as teachers meetings) or informally through individual discussions with the headmaster.

The above characteristics provide a framework for establishing a model of change for SMU. They are consistent with other studies on effective schools around the world. Compare with research conducted Lezotte (1989), Lockheed &Levin (1990), and Squires, Huitt, & Segars (198?).

Developing a change model is a difficult task as the process of change is a multi-dimensional effort. No one model can explain the intricacies of school development perfectly. What the consultants wish to propose is a framework that guides the change process (see Diagram 1). In reviewing the data on the selected "school development" models, two key processes were identified. First, the headmaster's desire to increase the level of communication among the stakeholders, was a means to invite them to become partners in transforming the school (see Insert A). Greater awareness of the issues and the stakeholders' perspectives created an opportunity to address the real problems that the school faced in trying to improve the quality of education. Secondly, delineation of decision-making responsibilities to the stakeholders allowed more immediate resolution of issues and freed the headmaster to function as a facilitator for school development (see Insert B). Both processes placed greater responsibility on the stakeholders. This increased stakeholder motivation and self-respect. The stakeholders used terms such as partnerships and family atmosphere to describe the new relationships in the schools. The remaining components are discussed in detail in the following sections.

Diagram I. Change Model of School Development

One advantage of this model is that once a school has reached optimal levels of open communication and shared decision-making, it can function independently. This implies that the headmaster serves as a coordinator of the different school functions. Major issues such as the direction of school development and identifying financial resources to support on-going school development preoccupy the headmaster's activities. In an education system where headmasters are periodically changed, this approach allows school development to continue while a new headmaster is introduced to the school.

The model serves as an overview of the processes involved in developing the conditions for change in schools. As secondary schools move toward school-based quality improvement it serves to orient schools to the process by which development will be achieved.

One of the key elements to encourage school development is the opportunity for stakeholders to express viewpoints and exchange ideas. Through this dialogue comes a better understanding of the needs of the different stakeholders and a basis for trying to solve problems that are common to the stakeholders, as well as resolving conflicting needs among them. The SDM experienced openness and transparency in the SMUs. Differences among the schools in approaches to communication were reflected by the headmaster's own preferences. Headmasters and teachers supported informal discussions with parents, students and community members through individual meetings and school or community activities.

Headmasters seeking to gain support from the teachers discussed school development efforts with them for feedback and for them to propose alternative approaches as well as other development issues. Typically, a headmaster would hold regular meetings to discuss the issues facing the school. School budgets were openly discussed and input sought on how to adjust budgets to meet specific school objectives. The headmaster received input from all stakeholders and presented these to the teachers. Development issues related to academic programs were addressed within the school. Other matters were referred to BP3 as recommendations.

A foundational issue that all headmasters felt necessary to address was defining the role of teachers, students and parents. Expectations and responsibilities were defined so that everyone had a clear understanding. This created a sense of direction and purpose for the stakeholders. It also provided a common theme for school development. Based on the existing conditions at the school, the headmaster, teachers and parents could develop a mission and vision statement that address the needs and aspirations of all the stakeholders.

Teachers were able to communicate concerns and exchange ideas at regularly scheduled meetings with the headmaster. This varied from school to school by once a week to once a cawu. Teachers had the freedom to share views, even views that were contrary to the headmaster's perspective. Headmasters, who reviewed school budgets with teachers, found more support for programs, especially if the teacher's views were addressed in the program. Teachers felt they were more like partners in improving the quality of the school. A feeling of ownership led the teachers to greater interest and participation in programs. Open- communication offered teachers an opportunity to be treated as professionals and to receive the respect the teachers deserved.

Students were invited to discuss concerns with the headmaster and teachers, however there was still some reluctance or shyness on the students' part. The headmaster's support and willingness to listen to students helped to encourage them. Through the "student council" meeting, students learned to express their opinions in a more comfortable setting and learned to address concerns in an organized manner. Also through the student organizations, students could express their views and propose recommendations.

Parents' concerns were addressed through improved communication. BP3 served as a means to involve the parents in development initiatives. BP3 scheduled meetings and means of communication with members varied among the schools. The most effective programs met four times a year and informed members of development activities at each meeting. Parents could express their concerns, raise questions and review expenditures of programs sponsored by BP3. Members selected projects to implement by voting for there preference. Also available to teachers was the option to speak to the headmaster and teachers on an informal basis.

Community leaders found greater opportunity to discuss school and community issues with the headmaster and BP3. Community leaders were invited to school meetings when particular issues relevant to the community were addressed. Community leaders felt comfortable talking to the headmaster and teachers informally as well. There was a strong informal network that existed already between teachers and staff living in the community and community members. Through formal and informal interactions, the community members regarded the schools as an essential component to community development. A community leader explained that without the school the former rubber plantation community would be left behind. Insert B Sharing School Decision-Making Responsibilities Among Stakeholders

The success of the SDMs could be attributed to the shared decision-making practices in the schools. By delineating responsibility among the stakeholders, the headmaster was able to pay more attention to school improvement concerns and developing financing strategies for school development. Another aspect of sharing decision-making responsibilities is that it recognizes the personnel as professionals and challenges them to perform better. A sense of self-respect and confidence replaced defeatist attitudes.

Headmaster role shifted from that of control to facilitator. By giving the day to day responsibilities of the school to the deputies and teachers, the headmaster could focus his/her energies on improving the academic programs and the means to accomplish this. Additionally, he/she could pay more attention to building relationships with parents and the community.

Deputy headmasters assumed complete decision-making responsibility in their respective areas. Any problems experienced in the schools that were not solved by others, they would address. On rare occasions, a problem that could not be addressed would be brought to the attention of the headmaster. By assuming this role the deputies gained valuable leadership skills and experiences that would assure the continual development of the school even if the headmaster was detain for some period of time.

Teachers were given more responsibility for instructional improvement and creativity. The headmaster and other supervising staff were available to discuss with the teachers, innovative approaches in the classroom. Together they could evaluate the effectiveness of the approach and make a decision on its appropriateness. Teachers also dealt with students having problems directly. If necessary the teacher requested that the parents visit the school or the teacher visited the parents. By assuming more responsibility for academic achievement, the teachers were treated more as professionals instead of employees.

Students were given opportunities in some schools to discuss and propose ways to address concerns they had through a student council. The council was made up of classroom representatives and the headmaster chaired the meeting. The classroom representatives presented issues to be addressed in the council meetings. They discussed the issues and proposed ways to address them. The council addressed the proposed activities that focused on student interests. Matters that affected the school were taken by the headmaster and presented to the teachers. Other issues not concerning academics would be presented to BP3 for consideration. The student council concept accomplished several crucial development issues. First, it brings students into the development effort of the school by allowing them to address their needs and informing the school of their perspective on school development. Second, the school council serves as an example of civic life where by students learn about human organizations and political structures. In a sense it is an active learning experience about civic education. Third, it recognizes and develops their potential for leadership roles in the school and beyond.

Parents were more motivated and more willing to contribute to school development activities when given decision-making and monitoring responsibility for the school projects funded by BP3. Effective BP3 programs invited parents to review the budget and vote on changes, choose the school-proposed project they wish to fund for the year, and to monitor the implementation and funding of those projects. Parents have an invested interest in seeing that their BP3 contributions are utilized in an efficient and appropriate way.

Community Leaders were not directly involved with school-based decisions, but played an important role outside the school. With some of the SDMs the community leader(s) participated in school and BP3 meetings either as a parent, regular participant or invited guest. Their participation provided information that contributed to the decisions made at the meetings. By bringing local village leaders, education officials, local government officials and business leaders into school discussions on quality improvement, headmasters were able to not only find sympathetic ears to listen to the problems of the school, but found assistance in addressing environmental concerns and the establishment of a partnership for continued school support.

The following sections highlight the findings from the research at the SDMs as identified in the Change Model in Diagram 1.

Headmaster: the headmaster is the key person for the improvement and development of the school. The consultant's observed that the SDM headmasters had a real desire to change the schools. The sole purpose was, however to address the learning needs of the students. This was at the core of all development efforts. The headmaster guided the stakeholders toward the development of a vision and mission for the school. Through discussions arranged with the teachers and parents, specific objectives were identified for each academic school year. Through various communication means, teachers' and students' needs were acknowledged and incorporated in the development plans. As the instructional leader, the headmaster defined the role of each stakeholder (parent, student, teachers, and staff). Disciplinary standards were set and discussed so that everyone was aware of the their importance to creating a learning environment. To assist the headmaster, others were invited to assume responsibility for the overall development of the school. The Teachers were given more control over the teaching process, but had to demonstrate improvement in student achievement. Ideas were discussed with the headmaster and tried out. Successful programs continued while the others were dropped. This provision for teachers to test-out new ideas supported a number of critical developments. It recognized the teachers as professionals. Similarly, it converted the school into a learning organization, one that was dynamic and not stagnant. Finally, it gave the teachers a sense of empowerment.

Teacher Needs: Teachers are the foundation of all education endeavors. Supporting them is crucial to any effort to improve the quality of education. There were three areas that needed to be addressed: teacher welfare, professional development, and instructional support. To encourage and motivate the teachers, these areas needed to be addressed. The change model notes the open communication between the headmaster and other stakeholders. Through this process the teacher's needs were acknowledged and appropriate support sought from the headmaster and parents. The experiences in the SDMs highlighted a variety of ways to support teachers. Teacher welfare was supported through transportation fees, free lunches, additional salaries for extra teaching loads or special training, and assuming secondary teaching appointments. Headmasters played greater attention to the professional development of the teachers by reviewing the civil servant criteria for promotion and assisting the teachers toward this and by supporting all levels of in-service training. All schools placed emphasis on the teachers completing at least an S1 degree. The third area of concern was addressed by providing supplementary materials for the subjects taught, additional library resources, improving language and science laboratories, providing computer labs, and providing audio-visual equipment.

Student Needs: The sole purpose of schools is to provide a quality education for the youth of the country. Thus student achievement should be the primary concern in all development efforts. Student achievement depends on many factors. Of these, motivation is one that plays a significant part in student learning. All of the model schools created an environment that was conducive to learning. This was achieved through clear statements on the role of each stakeholder including the students and parents. Students had the responsibility to learn while others were there to assist them. Teachers and headmasters had high expectations for each student. When all stakeholders have the same views on the importance of learning, the consistency reinforces the concern for student success and it communicates a powerful message to the students. Besides having a common understanding of the role of education, appropriate, effective teaching methods and instructional materials strengthens the prospect for students to be successful. Other motivational schemes involved broadening the number of extra-curriculum activities that interested students. This varied from sports activities to religious education to training programs for employable skills (computers, English language emphasis, farming, and botany). Student participation in decision-making was another means to motivate students . Some headmasters created student councils made up of classroom representatives to discuss with the headmaster student concerns. In this manner the students were identifying their own needs as students and thus contributing to the development of the school. Some activities that were proposed became the responsibility of the students to implement. A side issue, but one that was addressed by all the schools was the need for a secure area for the students (and teachers) to attend school. All schools expressed a need for a wall for protection from wondering animals and intruders, as well as to keep students from wondering off. The wall or fence that surrounded the school compound was symbolic in that it declared that this place was a place set aside for students to learn. It was a very important issue for all schools.

One significant outcome that is implied here, but not researched is that the schools previously had a small pool of students to choose from in the kapubaten. Now the schools were drawing students from several kapubatens and from other districts. By addressing the educational and personal interests of the students, it appears these schools gained the respect and attention of a much larger section of society.

Community Integration: Often the parents and the local community were not seen as valuable assets to the school in improving the quality of education. By involving the parents and the local education office, government office, and business/industry, schools have identified additional resources both in supporting education and in finding alternative financial sources for school development. There was some variation in the function of BP3, but the most effective programs gave tremendous responsibility to the organization in deciding what programs were to be funded. Generally, the headmaster received input from all the stakeholders on ways to improve the school. Usually the headmaster and teachers would discuss issues related to improving the quality of instruction. These ideas would be formulated into programs by the headmaster and presented to BP3 for approval. Based on the available funds (and special contributions of parents in some cases), the members of the organization would vote on which programs would be implemented that year. Besides parents, community representatives may be participating in the meetings especially if their support was needed for a project. This would be followed-up with the creation of a committee (whose members were stakeholders) who would oversee the implementation of the program. In this whole process the headmaster served as an advisor. Parent motivation was very high once they were given decision-making responsibility. Some schools noted that contributions were increasing even during the economic crisis of 1997-98. Other BP3 organizations voted to reduce the monthly fees due to reduced incomes of families during this time. When BP3 members are given the responsibility to approve funds and to monitor how money is spent, they are more likely to contribute more, knowing that the funds will go directly to support the school.

Several of the "school development" models made significant gains by working with local education offices and other government offices to support educational programs or improving the school environment. For example two schools were able to get support from the local government to repair the entrances to the school. One school was able to get support from a local business to help fund the construction of a wall around the perimeter of the school. The possibility of finding funding resources locally aids schools in that they do not have to rely on the MOEC to provide for all their needs. The availability and immediacy of the funds offers schools the chance to plan for further development and at the same time there is an increase in accountability at the local level.

Lezotte, L.W (1989). Effective Schools Research Model for Planned Change. Effective Schools Products, Limited. Michigan Okemos. July 1989.
Lockheed, M.E. & Levin, H.M (1990). "Creating Effective Schools". Chapter 1 in Effective Schools in Developing Countries. H.M. Levinand M.E. Lockhead, Eds. Falmer Press. Washington, DC
Squires, D.A., Huitt, W.G., & Segars, J.K. (199?). Effective Schools and Classrooms : A Research-Based Perspective. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Virginia, Alexandria.
Umaedi (1999) Manajemen Peningkatan Mutu Berbasis Sekolah. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Directorate Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menegah, Directorate Pendidikan Menengah Umum. Indonesia, Jakarta

Over the course of six months we have engaged several international consultants on the development of the concept for MSSD. These consultants have met with Pak Boediono and Pak Totok to discuss concerns and vision for the initiative. In meetings with the MSSD consultants, the concept was developed further and plans were prepared by Pak Simon Ju on the actual implementation. The concept departs significantly from the traditional concept of "model school." The traditional view supports identifying an outstanding school and developing it to meet some standard for an "ideal" school. The discussions further indicated that this approach has never worked when implemented. Some of the reasons put forth include:

• Usually very good schools are selected as "model" schools, thus having a distinct advantage over typical schools. Typical schools need to develop first into good schools and then pursue more ideal conditions for the "model" school concept. Since good schools developed over time and relied on the contributions of generous parents and community, replication of this characteristic is difficult in typical schools.

• The development of "model" schools requires increased inputs, such as facilities, instructional resources, and funds to support teachers extra efforts. These contributions to the school are significant. This raises the issue that similar inputs are necessary for other schools to improve. Since this is not the case, then replicability is not possible.

• While receiving support to convert a good school into a "model" school, the quality of the school improves. However, when the support stops, the quality is not sustained. The experiences with SMU Plus are an example of this. The concern here is about sustainability.

• "Model" schools represent an ideal situation. The diversity of environments in Indonesia makes it very difficult to address all conditions. It represents a top-down approach with the quality of the schools being dictated by the central office. Continuing with this argument either a very general model is developed or a multitude of models are developed. These do not take into consideration the idiosyncrasies of headmasters, teachers, students, parents, and community. This lack of flexibility undermines the transferability of a model.

These realizations have forced the consultants to view models from a different perspective. The criteria in developing a new perspective are as follows:

1. attention should be given to typical schools;
2. the model should be replicable, that is basing school development on available local resources and on the efforts of available human resources;
3. the model should be sustainable, that is giving ownership of development to the school and community; and
4. the model should be transferable, that is one that can be implemented in all schools regardless of the environment and idiosyncrasies of the school and community.

Based on these criteria, the conceptualization of a new view on models emerged. One that was not based on an ideal standard, but on the conditions for change experienced by typical schools. If we could model the process of change, then we could meet the criteria for a model as noted above. Key to this approach was identifying "typical" schools that have experienced development and learn from them. Data on the change process that occurred in these schools could then be converted to a model. This is a highly significant shift from the traditional view of model schools. This approach clearly meets the above criteria for a model. First, it is based on real schools, ones that are typical. Secondly, since these schools have demonstrated that change is possible with local resources, it will easily be replicable. Third, since the school and community were involved in the decision-making and support for development, it will be sustainable due to the personal involvement of the stakeholders. Fourth, since the focus is on modeling change, it can easily be transferred to any environmental situation.

The concept of "modeling change" poses a unique way to view school development. It also supports the current Director of Secondary Education's vision for school-based management. It allows for autonomy and independence at the school level. In this era of reform and Krismon, more responsibility at the school-level becomes a significant factor for school development. Decentralization and decreasing funds to support schools only reinforce the need for schools to assume more responsibility for school development. The "modeling change" approach to MSSD seems to be a good match for the conditions existing in Indonesia.

Another component of the MSSD is the effort to further support the schools in the program (models of school change). It becomes important to assist these schools through the normal school-process for change. Any attempt to alter this would compromise the natural setting and create an artificial situation. Not only is there a need to discuss the problems facing the school and ways to resolve them, but also the process itself needs to be made explicit. Several reasons for this is that:

• The personnel at the school will be resources for the MSSD initiative once it is implemented in the year 2000.

• A better understanding of the process can lead to improvements in communication and implementation of school development programs.

• By participating in MSSD workshops, schools in the program can develop the language of school development and form the basis for further piloting and research on school development. In essence the personnel will become experts in school development and their schools will be "demonstration" schools.

The consultants' efforts were always focused on improving the quality of schools. This approach allows more freedom for schools and communities to define quality and to support the programs that will lead to improvement. It addresses the particular needs of the school and community. By allowing more local participation in the decision-making, it relies on the potential of each teacher, student, parent, and community member in developing the school.

• T : Permanent Teachers
• H : Non-Permanent Teachers
• J : Total

APPENDIX C
Interview Questions for Schools in the Modeling Change in Senior Secondary School

The consultants on the Modeling Change in Senior Secondary Schools initiative adopted an interview protocol to gather information on the change process for the selected schools. This option was taken because the results of a questionnaire would not be able to generate the type of information desired. Furthermore, experiences show that questions can be misinterpreted and the result is gathering irrelevant information. Since the number of schools was small this was an achievable objective. To develop a complete picture of the changes and perspectives of stakeholders, the school set-up a schedule of interviews with the headmaster, active and less active teachers, active and less active students, active and less active parents, community leaders and in some cases a representative from the KANDAP. By comparing the results of the data from all these resources a picture of the change process in each school emerged. The results are reported within this document. To elicit information the following questions served as guides for the type of information desired. Supplemental questions were presented to gather additional information as needed.

Question 1: What changes occurred in the school environment since the headmaster came to the school?

Question 2: How did the attitudes of the teachers changed during this period?

Question 3: How did the attitudes of the students changed during this period?

Question 4: How did the attitudes of the parents changed during this period?

Question 5: In what ways has community involvement changed during this period?

Question 6: If you were appointed as Minister of Education and Culture tomorrow, what changes would you like to recommend?