SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AS LOCALIZED POLICY: A …_School_Improvement_as... · teacher development literature in may 2016 school improvement as localized policy: a review of the educational

May 2016

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

AS LOCALIZED POLICY:

A REVIEW OF THE

EDUCATIONAL

LEADERSHIP AND

TEACHER DEVELOPMENT

LITERATURE IN

INDONESIA AND

MALAYSIA

Justin D. Pereira

The HEAD Foundation

[email protected]

THF Literature Review

School Improvement as Localized Policy: A Review of the Educational Leadership and Teacher Development Literature in Indonesia and Malaysia

Page 1 of 26

Abstract

Policy borrowing, a key feature of today’s social policy and especially in education, is

useful as it encourages nations and systems to learn new ideas (oftentimes dominant

in the international literature) that seemingly work in other countries. However,

equally useful is an overall understanding on how countries have adopted and

adapted these ideas, highlighting the negotiated successes and challenges

encountered which can further shape knowledge. This literature review, examines

the knowledge base that currently exists in the domains of educational leadership

and teacher development in both Indonesia and Malaysia. While there is a strong,

overall pursuit by these governments to improve educational quality to meet

international benchmarking standards for school improvement, multiple challenges

are highlighted especially in the areas of 1) politics, 2) need for development and

survival, 3) and a symbiotic need to look at school leadership and teacher

development as a cohesive whole.

Introduction

While a single framework to improve schools and student outcomes is desirable, the

differences in state capacity, political and social philosophies, issues in and around

culture, multi-ethnicities, and geographies to name a few, all play a role in shaping

the way a country’s education system operates. Despite these varying

characteristics, popular arguments in education research on what makes a good

school or the things that affect a school’s performance, narrowly or broadly defined,

largely capitalizes on teacher effectiveness, school leadership quality and its

practices.

Therefore, as governments, researchers and education practitioners attempt to

evoke positive change within a school system, there is a dilemma to the degree of

policy borrowing and contextualization needed. Underscoring that tension is a need

to develop a “critical mass” of deeper, richer and critical accounts of school

improvement processes in Asia, with contextualised approaches focusing on teacher

and school leadership effectiveness (Harris, 2015). Research has shown that in

order to improve schools, teachers and the school leadership must be treated as

stakeholders in this strategy. Ideas adopted unchanged from a Western and English

dominated literature, may run into barriers that are unique to ASEAN countries like

Indonesia and Malaysia, both developing states with its own set of histories, political

ideologies and cultural sensitivities.

This review explores research in the fields of teacher effectiveness and

development, and educational leadership that may shed light on the complexities

when global theories are applied in vastly different cultural contexts. The review is

limited to two middle income ASEAN countries, Indonesia and Malaysia. Although

their differences are aplenty, e.g. Malaysia’s ethnic pluralism is greater than

Indonesia and their education systems reflect this, the two countries are also

developing middle income economies with a common goal in attempting to improve

school standards; providing the rationale for a brief comparative study.

This paper is not comprehensive as works cited are limited to those found

written in English. As Indonesia and Malaysia are rich in their diversity of languages

and with research potentially widely done in their lingua francas (Bahasa Indonesia


Page 2 of 26

and Bahasa Malaysia respectively), any literature in these languages remains

inaccessible at this point of writing.

Still, this paper attempts to make a contribution in providing a brief overview of

the domestic research conducted on school improvement, teacher development and

educational leadership in Indonesia and Malaysia, highlighting their presence and

potential to shape local policy. Insofar as policy borrowing is a widely preferred tool

for policymakers, policy learning that emerges from the confluence of international

theories and local, generative research provide the capacity for effective change

unique to the context.

In the first section, the paper will contextualize the motivations behind the

study, problematizing the notion of school improvement and its relations to teacher

and teaching quality, and educational leadership. Thereafter, instances of domestic

research in Indonesia and subsequently Malaysia will be weaved together, providing

insight to the (hopefully) latest understandings available in the literature. This paper

then concludes with some thoughts on the lessons learnt and the potential

challenges for research in each country.

Contextualizing the Review

School Improvement

Educational quality across countries in Southeast Asia is varied. Countries such as

Singapore are high performers in international standards tests such as PISA

(Programme for International Student Assessment) and TIMMS (Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study), while member states like Indonesia

and Malaysia perform below the OECD average. Although these international

benchmarking tests are criticized on issues such as consistent or consistency of

standards, cultural relativity and the potential implication of measurable

accountability processes (Dohn, 2007; Hanushek & Raymond, 2002; Harris & Jones,

2015), these education markers claim their relevance in providing a snapshot of each

country’s educational performance and its schooling quality. In comparison with

others, these indicators reflect, partially, a country’s potential for socio-economic

development, based on the ability of its human capital. More critically, these

benchmarks, to a certain degree, provide evidence for assumptions of the education

systems which seemingly work, and those that do not.

Although access to primary and secondary education continues to remain a

key issue for many countries, scholars have argued that educational quality is the

basis on which a causal relationship is established with economic outcomes

(Hanushek & Woessmann, 2007). While this incentivises governments to

continuously invest in improving public education systems for human capital

development, a strong quality of education can also lay the foundation for improved

livelihoods. The old adage of attending schools in and by itself is, therefore,

insufficient. To improve quality, schools may introduce refreshed curricula for its

students, with new ways of teaching and assessment methods but this may not

necessarily lead to improved learning outcomes. Hence, as Dimmock (2012) notes,

what is also needed for educational reform then is an “organizational redesign”

throughout schools that will affect both the organization and existing leadership


Page 3 of 26

configurations – broadening the notion of school improvement beyond pedagogy or

examinations.

At its core, an improvement in educational quality will mean an improvement in

student outcomes. Yet, school improvement when situated in a context of

international league tables limits focus to the measurable while oftentimes relegating

the non-measurable to the rear. Ladwig (2010) argued that debates about education

are frequently about school accountability, with little consideration about the non-

academic - also a consequence of schooling. Education, broadly defined, has a role

in 1) shaping cognitive thought, 2) inculcating character, as well as 3) equipping the

student with the necessary skills for work. It builds on existing fields of knowledge

possessed by each child, shaped by his or her experience within the community.

However, as character and values, for instance, are not always easily measurable,

there is a danger of an overemphasis by stakeholders on the academic. The shift by

national economies into the 21st century knowledge-based frame further

problematizes educational needs, demanding students to look also at how, instead of

singularly what, measurable knowledge is learnt.

Figure 1: Institutions needed for school improvement

This places clear pressure on education systems to improve, and to keep up

with global and local demands – improved teacher effectiveness and school

leadership are therefore part of that equation. Leithwood et al. (2004) concluded that

“[educational] leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-

related factors that contribute to what students learn at school”, earmarking the need

to work with teachers and school leaders for better student outcomes. It is indicative

that who gets selected, trained and inducted as both a teacher and school leader is

all the more important in this new century forward. With educational needs going

beyond the academic, the expectations are high (Pereira, 2016). The need for

disciplinarity, soft skills, values and adaptive skills imbued in the next generation of

Government

Teachers

Educational Leaders

Societal context: Parents, the

community, the nation


Page 4 of 26

students, challenges traditional forms of practises employed by both school leaders

and teachers. It hints at the complex idea of school improvement, and its constituent

factors.

The agreed upon institutions that affect school improvement are, however,

multifaceted (illustrated in Figure 1). Although the immediate literature may demand

focus on teachers (Muijs et al., 2014) and educational leadership (Day et al., 2007;

Fullan, 2001; Smith & Bell, 2014), stakeholders also include the government and the

broader societal context. Lee and Hallinger’s (2012) piece elaborated later on in this

paper is one example of how the broader social context acts as an influence towards

how school leaders behave. It is an important consideration given that schools do not

exist in a vacuum, and are just as much service providers to the communities and

countries they are situated in. This literature review will highlight research found in

these various areas, and how they necessarily intersect with the major domains of

teacher effectiveness and educational leadership.

However, insofar that these areas are recognized to provide avenues for

research towards improved outcomes, the school improvement literature is

conceptually wide and disconnected (Scheerens, 2014). While Muijs et al. (2014)

highlight discourses in the teaching effectiveness literature, they do not discuss how

the act of teaching is affected and implicated by outside classroom variables; the

social appears to be unconnected to the pedagogical. Reynolds et al. (2014) talk

about the educational effectiveness literature centred on the school and the teacher,

but place less emphasis on issues that occur at the systemic level. The overview

provided by Hopkins et al. (2014) in school and system improvement note that much

focus lies on macro educational reform strategies and research. Articles like

Hallinger and Heck’s (2011) highlight that the individual school context is still a

necessary consideration, and that one must factor in the school’s current status

within the system and its intended trajectory.

From this broad overview of the various perspectives mentioned, it is clear that

there is much interest in education research for school improvement. Apart from the

need for broad reconciliation across domains, there is then also the issue of what

gets adopted and adapted within policy circles. Complicating the problem even

further is that while research for and around school improvement has been rigorous,

a reconciliation of these findings on what works beyond general theory and into

contextual, practical accounts is oftentimes problematic because of “different

assumptions and research traditions” (Hallinger & Heck, 2011). Moreover, while

individual case studies are useful in developing a strategy, it is limited as it cannot be

generalized.

As such, Hallinger and Heck (2011) have proposed that longitudinal data is a

necessity to understand how a localized theory of school improvement can take

shape. The time taken for longitudinal studies, however, is also a shortcoming, and

not always one in which governments and policymakers can afford. As a result, there

is a certain attractive quotient about learning the experience of other countries,

especially those that represent “best practice”. Further, Steiner-Khamsi (2013) notes

that the global circulation of best practices are a strong pressure acting on

governments to simply adopt international solutions to local problems. Raffe (2011)

argues that the tendency to learn from best practices creates a policy borrowing


Page 5 of 26

approach that is methodologically unsound. Instead, a policy learning approach is

recommended, where policies are developed tailored to the country’s needs. A

unique feature about policy learning is that the international experience should be

capitalized on as a platform to understand the domestic system – a feature well

demonstrated and executable through local research.

Educational Leadership

While educational leadership theories since then and before have been addressing

topics such as Transformational leadership, Distributed leadership and Instructional

leadership, much of the criticism is that these models were built on Western empirical

studies with little contribution from Asia. It was only in recent years that the literature

on Asian educational leadership has taken prominence within academic circles

(Hallinger, 2015; Li, 2015; National Institute of Education, 2013; Ng, 2015). Harris

(2015) concurs with Hallinger and Chen (2014) that there is a dearth of domestic and

comparative educational leadership literature that takes into account Asian countries.

In particular, Harris argues that existing leadership theories are largely mono-cultural,

and are normative in nature. How this is transferred across countries, especially

developing states and societies which are halfway across the world is not as clear.

Hence the advice that nations should be focused on policy learning rather than policy

borrowing.

Teacher quality and effectiveness

Improving the quality of teachers within Asia has received increased attention by

governments and researchers. Invariably regarded as the frontline officer with a

crucial and immediate role in shaping student development, teacher development

and quality research have frequently garnered the attention of international

institutions such as the World Bank [eg. Moreno(2005) and Chang et. al (2014)] and

UNESCO (2015, p. 54).

The Asia Society is one specific example where there has been effort to

spotlight attention onto the teaching profession, and its related effects on student

learning outcomes. Since 2011, the society has organized annual iterations of the

International Summit on the Teaching Profession (Asia Society, 2011, 2012, 2013,

2014, 2015). During the inaugural 2011 conference in particular, best practices on

teacher policy were shared amongst countries and case studies from high-

performing education systems were highlighted (Asia Society, 2011). Insofar that

these ideas were useful, they were ultimately premised on the results of sixteen high-

performing countries and regions1. As such, its applicability and transferability to

developing Southeast Asian countries that have varying structural priorities, differing

social and economic regard for teachers or even fundamentally separate state-

supported school systems because of religion and political philosophies, remain

open for debate and research. This further undergirds the necessity and importance

to contextualize global research and theories, and where possible, highlight localized

adaptation of existing theories that may not be as prevalent or widely understood.

1 Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the People’s Republic of China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Singapore, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America.


Page 6 of 26

Educational Leadership and Teacher Quality in Indonesia

Our scan of the Indonesian educational literature demonstrated a heavy emphasis in

ensuring that educational fundamentals are achieved. Research on educational

leadership is however slowly gaining traction, with a stronger realization that a sole

emphasis on teacher quality and teacher policies is insufficient in creating a high

performing education system.

Educational Leadership and the Politics of Decentralization

Scholars have noted that in lieu of a ‘missing’ domestic research literature on

educational leadership in Indonesia, policymakers often take to practices employed

by Western school systems as the basis of instruction to create policy. Motivated by

education systems whose comparative international benchmarking scores are

significantly higher than Indonesia’s, there is strong impetus to follow practices

highlighted in the global literature (eg. educational decentralization and policies such

as the country’s school-based management (SBM) systems). Furthermore, when

education policy practices resonate with certain political ideologies, policy makers

are driven to pay closer attention.

This privilege of the political over the empirical is evident in how school

principals perceive decentralized movements such as the SBM. Although there is

little mention on how SBM has impacted schooling outcomes, researchers have

found that Indonesian principals generally agree that the system worked in their

favour (Bandur, 2012). The increase in participatory decision making practices have

emphasized “democratic principles in school-decision making processes”. By giving

autonomy to local systems and encouraging participatory discourse, it was assumed

that schools can be better managed for improved outcomes.

Ironically, despite being portrayed as a means of empowerment,

decentralization in education has instead disempowered competent school leaders.

Recent work done by Sumintono et al. (2015) argue that although Indonesia

emplaced efforts to improve school leader quality through certification and training

since 2009, these nationally trained leaders find it difficult to lead schools if they lack

social connections with the local political office. Educational decentralization, while

empowering local governments in making school appointments then acts against the

system’s interest. Competency and meritocratic ability is but a shadow acting under

the more important realities of networks and relationship. Considering the country’s

social and political realities, scholars thus argue that what is necessary is training

and opportunities for school leaders to negotiate the intricacies which educational

autonomy brings about (Bjork, 2005; G. W. Jones & Hagul, 2001, p. 214).

As such, scholars such as Bjork (2005) have pointed out that the broadly

employed movement for educational decentralization and other policies like the Local

Content Curriculum (LCC) were embraced out of “hopefulness” rather than as a

“careful study” of the concept. The ADB noted that the move for decentralization was

due to the World Bank’s 1998 recommendation as a means for improved schooling

quality – backed by beliefs in autonomy and economic efficiency on resource

allocation compared against private schools (Behrman, Deolalikar, & Soon, 2002, p.

33). However, while decentralization gives autonomy to regional and local


Page 7 of 26

leadership, its effective implementation is highly dependent on many variables – one

of which is the availability of competent school and government leaders who are

committed to schooling effectiveness and schooling improvement. Decentralization is

also an attractive concept because of its political empowerment separate and a

contrast to Indonesia’s past authoritarian and federal-centric political history. Yet,

Hadiz (2004) argued that the pursuit of decentralization by the authorities was less

on the notes of transparency and accountability, but more on the development of a

decentralized network of patronage. Research conducted by Kristiansen and

Pratikno (2006) found while some parents perceived an improvement in educational

quality, it was also at the expense of transparency, accountability in government

spending and an increased cost of education.

Figure 2: Diagram extracted from Sofo, Fitzgerald and Jawas (2012) identifying the

problem areas that are limiting school reform and improved student outcomes in

Indonesian schools.

This barrier towards systemic change have thus prompted Sofo, Fitzgerald and

Jawas (2012) to argue that recommendations on Indonesian schooling have tended

to address “technical issues rather than [issues] on education reform”. However, in

an effort to provide ‘solutions’, they make a case for Instructional Leadership as a

model for school principals to address issues in 1) managerial shortcomings, 2)

change and irrelevancy, and 3) the quality of teaching within schools [see Figure 2].

On a different note, Hariri, Monypenny and Prideaux (2014) recommend instead that

Transformational and Transactional leadership should be instituted as part of the

educational leadership training programme. Their research on school principal

leadership styles and subsequent decision-making methods suggest that as

surveyed from the teachers’ perspective, these leadership styles produce positive

working relationships. As transformational and transactional leadership may be

coherent in establishing a strong partnership with teachers, it is evident that

Problem 1 Managerial shortcomings

(a) Lack of management efficiency

(b) Lack of experience to execute authority

(c) Lack of commitment

(d) Teachers paid on years of service not

performance

Problem 2 Change and irrelevancy

(a) Erratic change of policies

(b) Frequent curriculum changes

(c) Lack of representation of student

characteristics

(d) Relevance of learning weakened

Problem 3 Quality of teaching

(a) Professional competence and quality of

teaching

(b) Restrained development

(c) Lack of ambition, diligence and

innovation

(d) Job security more valued than desire to

improve and influence

Factors impeding school reform and improved student outcomes in

Indonesia


Page 8 of 26

researchers are attempting to adapt established global theory to fit the local context

in order to achieve long-term goals.

However, the successful implementation of leadership model is highly

dependent on how a principal perceives his role within the education system. Lee

and Hallinger (2012) conclude that Indonesian principals prioritize school

management and administrative procedures rather than other leadership or

instructional functions. This selective preference of time use is shaped by the

“organizational and [the] cultural context” where the principal’s actions are influenced

by the country’s economic, sociocultural and institutional priorities. Although the

literature privileges the principal to be a leader rather than an administrator, Lee and

Hallinger’s work highlights how the principal is also a reactive constituent to his

surrounding and nationalistic demands. This understanding implicates how a school

principal settles into his role as a leader, and how the school’s teachers are

subsequently managed by the individual. It has implications towards directions for

change, and the capacity of change that can be effectively embraced.

Nonetheless, there is also a strand of argument within the Indonesian

educational leadership literature that highlights the school principal’s efforts in going

beyond the conventional administrative role. Raihani (2008) argues from his research

on three successful Indonesian schools that principals commonly shared an ability to

1) analyse context (understand the school’s capacity and the community’s needs), 2)

create their own vision of success (in line with comparative standards at the National

and comparative level), and 3) make decisions based on beliefs and values strongly

grounded in religion. There appears to be a drive for success and school

improvement. What is not as clear, however, is how these localized ideas are

adopted and can work their way with the more macro perspectives produced by the

country’s education policymakers.

This brief survey over the Indonesian educational leadership literature reveals

a critical assessment still caught up in its infancy stages. While there are some

efforts to contextualize educational leadership within the multiple intersectionalities of

power, politics and geography, proposed suggestions for change are brief and not as

rigorous; there is too little research evidence on how ewll these ‘solutions’ might

work. Given Indonesia’s unique geopolitical landscape, models for school

improvement and better educational leadership may be better achieved from success

stories within the region. Top-down implementation of policies may encounter

difficulties that are unique and unattested for. It is a sentiment that is clearly

resounded within the next section on Teacher Reform in Indonesia.

The multiple complexities of research on Indonesian Teacher Quality

The World Bank’s recent report on “Teacher Reform in Indonesia” (Chang et al.,

2014) provides a comprehensive overview of Indonesia’s efforts in improving teacher

quality. The report structures work done around the teacher reform conceptual

framework (see Figure 3), detailing success and failures impacted by the 2005

Teachers’ Law. Notably, while policy has argued for significant increments in teacher

salaries, certification, professionalization, pre-service and continuous professional

development, the conclusion for future directions in Indonesian teacher policy


Page 9 of 26

centres on “whole-school reform” that integrates knowledge, culture and a “learning

community”.

Figure 3: Conceptual framework for quality education extracted from Chang et al.

(2014)

Clearly, this emphasis on teaching stems on the critical role which teachers

play in delivering and shaping student outcomes. Researchers has therefore

attempted to historicize the development of the Indonesian teaching community in

order to better understand where intervention can be made. Suryadarma and Jones

(2013) make the case that many of Indonesia’s educational problems revolve around

the teaching force. Because of strong teacher hiring occurring in the 70s – 80s in a

bid to vastly improve educational access to all Indonesians, compromises were made

in teacher recruitment, training and overall quality:

“This infusion of new, but not very rich, blood diluted the strength of the

teacher cadre; blurred the mythic image of the teacher as a community leader

and nation builder; and ultimately, combined with a large expansion of the

rest of the civil service, reduced the salaries of teachers and other civil

servants relative to other professions.”

(Chang et al., 2014)

As such, while government efforts created the educational capacity for

universal school enrolment by 1983, it had also created problems in 1) educational

quality, 2) teacher absenteeism, 3) de-professionalization, 4) and impacted the

Indonesian teacher’s role and identity. Despite government attempts to expand the

teaching force and improve teaching qualifications since Law 14/2005 (also known

as the Teachers’ Law), there is now a surplus of teachers, and the relationship


Page 10 of 26

between teacher certifications and student performance is minimal (Al-Samarrai &

Cerdan-Infantes, 2013; Suharti, 2013). The doubling of salaries also has had no

impact to student outcomes, and was seen only as a financial transfer to teachers

and an increment in teacher welfare (Ree, Muralidharan, Pradhan, & Rogers, 2015).

Fahmi, Maulana and Yusuf (2011) note that teacher certification in Indonesia is

a confusion of the means and ends. Although the formal end goal was to improve

student outcomes, certification only led to an improvement in a teacher’s living

standards. The authors recommend that a reward and punishment scheme be

implemented, closely tied to a student’s performance. This call for incentives and

sanctions was also resounded in tackling teacher absenteeism. Suryahadi and

Samabodho (2013) point out that because of the widespread case of teacher

absenteeism, especially in rural areas, student learning is negatively impacted. Both

authors argue that communities should be better involved with schools, and that

school committees should have the capacity and flexibility to discourage

absenteeism. It re-emphasizes earlier research which concluded policy’s motivating

and punitive roles in encouraging teachers to come to work (Usman, Akhmadi, &

Suryadarma, 2007).

However, Broekman (2013) pointedly argues that existing Indonesian teacher

accountability policies based on standards, appraisal, and links between

performance and reward are flawed. While these measures are appropriate based on

a “carrots and sticks” approach, Broekman questions if they truly reflect the

motivational and de-motivational factors among Indonesian teachers. HE asserts that

this managerial perspective stems from the Indonesian policymaker following global

rhetoric influenced by key stakeholders such as the World Bank. Also, as much as

teachers are expected to be professional individually, Broekman highlights the

nuances in institutional culture that displays a stronger teacher preference for

hierarchical “discipline”. This is contrasted to a degree by Hariri et al. (2012) and

Damanik (2014) who showed that a teachers’ job satisfaction could be improved if

the principal were “less coercive and bureaucratic”.

Therefore, while policy measures have attempted to employ tangible rewards

and sanctions to correct teacher behaviour, scholars have also broadened the

paradigm to look into other influencing factors such as the sociological and

psychological underpinnings that affect teacher performance both in the classroom

and out of it. Bjork (2013) notes that Indonesian teachers have a superordinate “civil

servant” identity that needs to shift into one of an ‘educator’. He argues that teachers,

loyal to the education ministry, implement its policies with little consideration of its

impact to students. This disjuncture between the central and the local is only

reinforced by the unquestioning bureaucratic teacher, grounded in its own history of

teacher-state relationships. Still, while Bjork argues that the idea of the ‘autonomous

educator’ is an alien concept partly motivated by the past2 , Young (2010) asserts

that such a perspective is limited as it “does not consider extra-national or global

forces”. In particular, English language teachers in Indonesia are challenging the

state’s overt presence because of the global language’s influence intermixed with the

local – which Young terms the global-state-local dialectic. It suggests that although

2 This is a theme consistent in Bjork’s writing. See Bjork (2005)


Page 11 of 26

there might be a consistent teacher culture, such homogeneity is constantly evolving

and re-shaped with the introduction of various internal and external influences.

Exacerbating the issues on maintaining and improving teacher quality is

Indonesia’s geographical diversity and divides between the urban and rural areas.

Even though educational access is almost universal, access for quality and

continuous teacher training remains a problem. Luschei and Zubaidah (2012)

pointedly note that rural schools are characterised with multigrade classrooms that

teachers are not equipped to teach. While the literature extolls the benefits of a

multigrade classroom and a multigrade pedagogy (Little, 2001; Thomas & Shaw,

1992), Luschei and Zubaidah’s (2012) respondents note that these ‘Western’

methods are hindered by large classes, insufficient resources, and a teacher training

that does not take into account local challenges – with teachers much preferring

monograde classes. The authors suggest that this preference for monograde

teaching is behavioural. A deep loyalty to the country’s previous dictum of a one-

grade, one-curriculum learning philosophy advocated by the previous centralized

education system, and the need to cater to high stakes national examinations in the

6th and 12th grades, discourage teachers from autonomously innovating multigrade

practices. Furthermore, with rural schools and teachers being geographically

separated from their teacher educators and continuous training opportunities, the

capacity to respond and improve becomes a spatial issue.

Teacher Professional Development

Indonesia’s rural and remote landscape thus raises issues on how teachers can

engage in continuous professional development (PD). Sari (2012) posits that as

current PD practices focus on teacher-centred instead of collaborative approaches,

with a strong demand for “face-to-face” interaction, teachers are structurally

prevented from improving existing skills if they do not have the benefit of access. Her

proposal in establishing a modified Online Learning Communities (OLC) that is

adapted for Indonesia’s socio-cultural context through hierarchical teaching, and one

that leverages on social media on mobile phones considering the country’s ICT

infrastructural landscape, opens up a discussion for possibilities towards change.

Where instructional practice is concerned, one international practice adapted

and researched within Indonesian classrooms is the use of Lesson Study (LS) to re-

shape pedagogical methods. Introduced to Indonesian teachers since the early

2000s, LS provide a platform for continuous professional development and is an area

that has garnered significant attention from local scholars (Eisuke Saito et al., 2006;

Firman, 2010; Hendayana, 2010; Hendayana et al., 2007; Saito, Hawe,

Hadiprawiroc, & Empedhe, 2008; Saito, Imansyah, Isamu, & Hendayana, 2007;

Saito, Imansyah, Isamu, & Hideharu, 2006; T. Suratno & Cock, 2009; T. Suratno,

2009a, 2009b). More recently, Suratno (2012) argues that because of the Ministry’s

commitment, international expert support, local adaptation, teacher motivation for

change and a “learning process that was more engaging and different from the

norm”, LS is currently “spreading like wildfire across Indonesia”. Still, scholars

caution that more effort and understanding is needed in LS partnerships and

sustaining reflexive practices in order to create a valuable form of continuous quality

teacher education (Tatang Suratno & Iskandar, 2010). The main issues that


Page 12 of 26

seemingly stand out from the Indonesian teacher literature largely centres on impacts

which the 2005 Teacher Law achieved, the teacher’s underlying social and

psychological grievances, and challenges concerning continuous professional

training considering the country’s wide geographical spread.

Notably, there is a distinct effort to critically engage with existing policy and

practices to adapt to domestic nuances. However, one lasting consideration is that

as Indonesian teacher policy remains a reform centrepiece with a vested interest by

international organizations and global research, the leverage which domestic

research has remains a point for contention.

Educational Leadership and Teacher Quality in Malaysia

Before delving into the Malaysian educational literature, it is important to note

that while similar concerns are shared with Indonesia in broad attempts to improve

educational quality, there is a substantial push in the Malaysian education system,

towards an attempt to produce equitable student outcomes. While this does not

mean that the Indonesian government is ignorant of student equity issues, the

Malaysian National Educational Blueprint 2013-2025 has highlighted multiple factors

concerning educational equity such as a state’s economic capacity, the presence of

rural and urban schools, the divide amongst ethnic schools and its varying

performances, and the increasing educational-gender gap between boys and girls

(Ministry of Education, 2012, p. E–9).

The challenge becomes even more significant as the country recognizes the

need to equip Malaysian students with 21st century knowledge, skills and

competencies that, while present in a few schools, effectively intensifies existing

issues of inequality. This quest for educational opportunity has been a core

concentration of the government since independence, as a means to correct the

ethnic-based differences within society wrought about by colonial rule.

Therefore, although this paper had initially begun a discussion on moving away

from the issue of access to one of quality, conversations around equity is now also

an influential reason as to why school improvement is sought in a country. Elements

of the domestic literature, has as such, reflected this sentiment with a stronger

emphasis on critical education policies centred around topics such as

multiculturalism (eg. Tan and Raman (2010, 2014)). Yet, this criticality does not

necessarily always permeate the immediate literature on schooling, with a stronger

tendency to view educational issues dissociated from the intersectionalities that

make a school. The seminal work by Hussein Ahmad (2012) on the Mission of Public

Education in Malaysia: The Challenge of Transformation is perhaps one of the few

recent pieces that attempt to provide a degree of critical thought in Malaysian

education.

Growing attempts at educational leadership research

In 2012, a new and ambitious National Educational Blueprint was established by the

Malaysian authorities attempting to raise the country’s education performance to

international educational standards. Within 11 recommended shifts to transform the

existing system, points 4 and 5 argue for the transformation of teaching into the

profession of choice, as well as ensuring high performing school leaders present in


Page 13 of 26

every school (Ministry of Education, 2012). This level of expertise and quality is

deemed necessary especially with a stronger move towards educational

decentralization. Stronger school leadership and management capacities are

required for strategies that advocate a “more open curriculum” (H. Ahmad, 2012, p.

369) and are designed with “minimal rules and procedures”. In this new normal,

schools are idealized with a capacity and autonomy to create direction while reacting

to policy. Ahmad (2012) argues that this demand beckons the development of

principals as “SuperLeaders” in Malaysian schools. It is to an extent, a re-invocation

of the Charismatic Leader that dominated previous leadership theories.

However, as noted by Jones et al. (2015), despite the recent attention given by

the Malaysian government towards principal preparation and training, the empirical

research on school leadership within the country remains limited. Earlier work done

by researchers proposing school leadership models suited for a 21st century

knowledge frame remain conceptual (eg. Ahmad and Ghavifekr (2014) and Tie

(2011)). Therefore, in a brief contribution to the domestic literature, Jones et al.

(2015) highlight findings that because Malaysian principals currently identify their role

as one which also empowers others to take action, institutionalizing a Distributed

Leadership model seems consistent and effective for schools. Halim and Ahmad

(2015) further concur that teachers are receptive with this model as it is also an

enabling factor for expertise to be shared. Nonetheless, the authors do argue that

Distributed Leadership is still in its infancy changes for widespread acceptability and

more research is needed to understand its implementation within the Malysian school

work culture.

Still, this recognition of teacher empowerment through school leadership

demonstrates a shift in how earlier scholars perceived school leaders to be simply a

manager and an administrator (Quah, 2011, p. 1787; Tie, 2011, p. 424). It resonates

with earlier research that there is growing consensus domestically on how leadership

practices have an impact on teacher performance, and subsequently better student

achievement for school improvement (Abdullah, DeWitt, & Alias, 2013; Simin

Ghavifekr, Ibrahim, Chellapan, Sukumaran, & Subramaniam, 2015; Ponnusamy,

2010; Salleh & Mohamad, 2015; Sharma, Sun, & Kannan, 2012; Suraya & Yunus,

2012).


Page 14 of 26

Figure 4: Challenges faced by Malaysian Chinese Primary Schools Heads of

Departments as transformational leaders by Ghavifekr et al. (2014).

Through his research on Instructional Leadership, Quah (2011) makes the

point that Malaysian principals are, in general, successful instructional leaders.

However, Quah also notes that Malaysian principals do not place as much attention

on weak teaching methods or underperforming students. Instead, there is an

emphasis towards areas of overall vision, a smooth teaching program, a

collaborative climate, and avenues for teacher’s professional development. The

implications of this discussion is that Malaysian school principals, though

instructional, are selective and grounded by older schools of thought that privilege

certain values and discourses. Sekhu (2011) then recommends that for methods

towards better student performance, instruction should be central to school activities

and that good relationships be established between teachers and learners. She also

advocates that the principal should take a stronger role in their teacher’s

development, especially those who are underachieving, as well as being kept

abreast of classroom activities.

Although Malaysia embraces a largely centralised education system with

direction set by Kuala Lumpur, the earlier Malaysian National Education Blueprint of


Page 15 of 26

2006-2010 attempted a degree of decentralisation through the establishment of

cluster schools in the country. Despite being given management autonomy in five

distinct areas3, school leaders still had a delimited freedom of choice (Malaklolunthu

& Shamsudin, 2011). This limited autonomy impacts a school’s capacity for teacher

recruitment decisions, resulting in a little authority in retaining the right teachers.

Recognizing the breadth of leadership-operational challenges within schools, work

produced by Ghavifekr et al. (2014) detail their findings from research on Chinese

primary schools Heads of departments (see Figure 4).

Malakolunthu (2007), though her analysis is limited to two Malaysian secondary

schools, points out that teachers face a bureaucratic school management structure

which undermines the teacher’s efforts. While there has been much effort to promote

various leadership models at the national level, Malakolunthu’s research shows a

situational “inability of the principal to establish a working culture based on the norms

of collegiality and professional inquiry” (ibid:127). In other words, there is a

dissonance between both teachers and principal of what it means to have a

supportive work climate.

Crucial to this discussion, however, is her assertion that there are different

conceptions to management, teaching and learning embraced by the principal – an

ethos that can subsequently affect a teacher’s performance. This is largely

influenced by a principal’s 1) beliefs, 2) existing professional knowledge as well as 3)

demands from larger policy contexts and their subsequent expectations most

especially brought about by frequent reform. Therefore, Malakolunthu proposes that

despite the realities of out-of-touch educational power-brokers from central

government, there needs to be stronger efforts in “building principals” to support

school development.

It is clear that though research attempts have been made in illuminating best

practices amongst school leaders, as well as various advocates arguing for a

leadership model that works, there is a strong undercurrent that demands for

leadership to take place in schools. Nonetheless, while there is strong research

establishing leadership’s necessity, there is little empirical work done that reveal how

leadership practices are challenged within the existing system. This is an important

consideration as though there are calls for strong leadership, more understanding is

needed how these leaders (if any) negotiate the realities brought about by a strong

centre. In other words, scholarship that provides a critical address on the

complexities of power for the system’s middle leaders can give better insight to the

steps needed in creating high performing school leaders.

The research reviewed in this essay make a stronger argument that leadership

is important for school improvement, but it does not explicate as much on how it is

also problematic. The challenges that do surface are oftentimes operational, and not

immediately revealing of a larger discourse that is present in a confluence of the

political, social, psychological or geographical.

A stronger need to study Teacher quality and development

3 School management, physical management, human resource management, teaching and learning, co-curriculum management.


Page 16 of 26

There is a global consensus that one of the best ways to improve teaching is to

transform teaching into the profession of choice – a fact not lost on the Malaysian

authorities. Articulated as a career meant for top graduates, teachers will arguably

receive the best training from recruitment to retirement, and have access to career

progression based on competency and merit (Ministry of Education, 2012, p. E–26).

This resolve, however, has been a frequent pursuit by the authorities with the various

reform plans such as the Education Act 1996 and the Education Development Plan

2006 – 2010 (H. Ahmad, 2012, p. 167; Goh, 2012, p. 74; Jamil, 2014) to improve the

profession’s status as a whole as well as to improve instruction. Yet, as argued by

Malakolunthu (2007), the success of reform is not just a bureaucratic initiative. It is

highly dependent on those who implement the initiative. Therefore, when reform

does fail, one must look at potential “conceptual and practical cleavages”

(Malakolunthu, 2007, p. 1) between the policy planners and the implementers.

As shown in the earlier section, one of Malakolunthu’s (2007) key ideas is the

“building principal” concept. Apart from being an administrator and a manager, the

building principal’s core function as an instructional leader is to develop teachers.

However, as demonstrated through her empirical studies on two Malaysian schools,

the potential for teacher development is very much limited by the type leadership

present. This suggests then that central to opportunities for Professional

Development (PD) is the presence of instructional school leaders. Therefore, even if

there is strong government effort in encouraging PD as a means of career

development or because of monetary incentives (Jamil, Razak, Raju, & Mohamed,

2011), proper teacher development cannot occur without the right leaders. In that

sense, although Ahmad (2012) has identified several policy challenges when it

comes to developing quality teachers in Malaysia (such as issues on talent attraction

and the ability to connect pre-service training with professional service), the gap that

needs addressing are policy and research efforts that looks at teaching and

leadership relationships as a cohesive whole.

Also fundamental to this discussion is that a high quality teacher education

system is necessary to ground the teacher development process, and where

necessary, build resilience for future complexities. However, researchers have

argued that the Malaysian teacher education system must change. Lee (2002)

proposed early on that a revamp is needed in shifting the teacher education

curriculum from the technical-rational approach to one that is closer to a reflective

practitioner. Moreover, the “one-size fits all” approach in teacher education is

problematic especially with a culturally diverse teaching cohort that has to internalize

a national curriculum for an even more diverse group of students. Because the

challenges are multi-fold, Lee argues that there should be strong focus for research

on teacher education, especially in the context of teaching and learning and the

issues of lifelong professional development within a distinctive Malaysian context.

This emphasis on a high quality and relevant teacher education and educators

have been echoed a decade later. Ahmad (2012) acknowledges four areas of

opportunity that can ensure a quality teacher education: 1) the recruitment of the

right teacher educators, 2) rigorous pre-service teacher training programmes, 3)

quality continuous teacher education programmes, and 4) retaining of the best

teachers and teacher educators within the field. Importantly, he asserts that one


Page 17 of 26

critical question that needs discussion is “not where the Malaysian teacher education

mission is heading . . . but where it ought to be heading” (ibid:218).

At the agent level, Mokshein et al. (2009) argues that for Malaysia to train and

retain quality teachers within the cadre, teachers must be active participants in policy

discourse and take greater ownership in areas for professional development. The

authors further assert that at the system level, a greater decentralization of

educational governance is needed to include more stakeholders within the reform

process. Most importantly, a call is made for teachers themselves to solve the issues

on quality teaching. However, quality teaching varies and is not easily defined.

Contemporary pre-occupation by scholars and government with measurable figures

that reveal ‘quality’ is perhaps most clearly seen in the establishment of the 2009

Malaysian Teacher Standards. Yet, though standards are in one aspect limited and

may not be the only way to measure teacher quality, Goh (2012) notes that with a

“rigorous method”, competent instructional practice can be encouraged. Still, she

acknowledges that while the goals are clear, the empirical impact which standards

have within the teaching profession is currently uncertain.

Insofar that there are expectations on the teacher to deliver, a proper

environment is also needed to facilitate results. Nonetheless, scholars have argued

that teacher’s welfare is being neglected. Research conducted by Malakolunthu, Idris

and Rengasamy (2010) reveal that deteriorating work environment in Malaysian

secondary schools are having an impact onto teacher’s welfare and subsequently

classroom performance. Although some may argue that teachers are motivated by

intrinsic factors, Hamid et al. (2012) note that good personality alone is “insufficient in

terms of enhancing the teachers’ commitment and responsibilities towards their

students”. The complementary link, they argue, is a high degree of “cognitive

competency”. While this remains a factor to be further discussed, what is clear is that

both internal and external motivating factors need addressing in better understanding

the Malaysian teachers status and conditions.

From this brief survey of the Malaysian teacher development literature, it is

apparent that there are attempts in breaking the monolithic discussion called ‘quality

teaching’ into feasible parts for researchers to work on. Still, as much as these

articles highlighted are to a degree critical of existing practices, there are multiple

questions that need answering. For instance, if school leadership and teaching were

to be viewed as symbiotic halves, stronger empirical studies are necessary in

unveiling domestic best practices. In cases where schools have seemingly failed,

researchers must look at the larger political and policy discourse that affects results.

The factors that contribute to recruitment and development of a high quality teacher

are well documented. What is needed then is to establish the challenges in the

implementation of the policies in identifying and retaining quality teachers within

particular political, educational and cultural contexts.

Concluding Remarks

Firstly, it is important to note that this review set out to interrogate the national

literature that, it was hoped, would provide a basis for understanding the educational

policies in leadership and teacher quality in two Asian countries. The challenges

faced in this process is that much more work remains inaccessible due to language


Page 18 of 26

constraints and that not all works published in international journals are available

online. Despite these limitations, this review is significant as it provides the

international reader with a more informed, contemporary understanding of the

education research, issues and challenges that are present in both Malaysia and

Indonesia.

For Indonesia, the social realities brought about by politics, geography and

survival are most distinct in the research on educational leadership and teacher

development. Also, while there are numerous attempts to improve educational

quality, what it means to have improvement varies across locales ranging from urban

cities to rural schools. This beckons the question if international benchmarks such as

OECD’s PISA are entirely necessary, or equitably reflective of the country’s state of

education. It is clear that in Indonesia’s case, there is a stronger underlying emphasis

within research and policy that speaks of politics, state development and survival.

Malaysia’s challenges as understood from the research studies are less clear.

There is a clear recognition of education’s role for the national economy and the

country’s drive towards 21st century competencies, but the domestic research

available does not always rigorously assess the implications for such decisions. The

research focus is in the area of viewing teaching and school leadership as a

symbiotic whole. As much as there is call to create SuperLeaders (Malaysian

education system’s designation for good quality experienced teachers), this is also in

the view to develop better leadership capacities to encourage teachers’

development.

Still, attempts to adapt global ideas are present in both contexts. While

globalization may seemingly encourage policy borrowing from systems that

‘succeed’, Harris (2016) warns reformers that there is ample evidence to

demonstrate that approaches to school or system improvement needs to be properly

contextualized in order to have any real chance of succeeding. More documented

lessons are needed to understand the effects of policy acquisition that is adopted

based on just ideological assumptions.


Page 19 of 26

Appendix 1

Raihani’s (2008) model of successful Indonesian school leadership


Page 20 of 26

Note

The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily reflect those of The HEAD Foundation.

References

Abdullah, N. A. W., DeWitt, D., & Alias, N. (2013). School Improvement Efforts and

Challenges: A Case Study of a Principal Utilizing Information Communication

Technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 791–800.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.400

Ahmad, H. (2012). Mission of Public Education in Malaysia: The Challenge of

Transformation. University of Malaya Press.

Ahmad, R. H., & Ghavifekr, S. (2014). School leadershiup for the 21st Century: A

conceptual overview. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management,

2(1), 48–61.

Al-Samarrai, S., & Cerdan-Infantes, P. (2013). Where did all the money go?

Financing Basic Education in Indonesia. In Education in Indonesia. Singapore:

ISEAS Publishing.

Asia Society. (2011). Improving teacher quality around the world: The international

summit on the teaching profession.

Asia Society. (2012). Teaching and Leadership for the Twenty-First Century: The

2012 International Summit on the Teaching Profession.

Asia Society. (2013). Teacher Quality: The 2013 International Summit on the

Teaching Profession.

Asia Society. (2014). Excellent, Equity, and Inclusiveness: High Quality Teaching for

All: The 2014 International Summit on the Teaching Profession.

Asia Society. (2015). Implementing Highly Effective Teacher Policy and Practice: The

2015 International Summit on the Teaching Profession.

Bandur, A. (2012). School-based management developments and partnership:

Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development,

32(2), 316–328. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.05.007

Behrman, J. R., Deolalikar, A. B., & Soon, L. Y. (2002). Promoting effective schooling

through education decentralization in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Philippines.

ERD Working Paper Series. Asian Development Bank.

Bjork, C. (2005). Indonesian education: Teachers, schools and central bureaucracy.

New York: Routledge.

Bjork, C. (2013). Teacher Training, School Norms and Teacher Effectiveness in

Indonesia. In Education in Indonesia. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.

Broekman, A. (2013). The rationale and effects o accountability policies on the work

and motivation of teachers: Evidence from Indonesia. Global Managerial

Education Reforms and Teachers, 19.

Chang, M. C., Shaeffer, S., Al-Sammarrai, S., Ragatz, A. B., de Ree, J., &

Stevenson, R. (2014). Teacher reform in Indonesia: The Role of Politics and

Evidence in Policy Making. Retrieved from

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16355/97808213

98296.pdf?sequence=1


Page 21 of 26

Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., … Kington, A.

(2007). The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes.

Dimmock, C. (2012). Leadership, Capacity Building and School Improvement. New

York: Routledge.

Dohn, N. B. (2007). Knowledge and Skills for PISA—Assessing the Assessment.

Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(1), 1–16.

Eisuke Saito, Hendayana, S., Imansyah, H., Ibrohim, Isamu, K., & Hideharu, T.

(2006). Development of school-based in-service training under an Indonesian

mathematics and science teacher education project. Improving Schools, 9(1),

47–59.

Firman, H. (2010). Dampak program kerjasama FPMIPAUPI dan JICA (the impact of

FOMASE IUE and JICA cooperation programmes). In T. Hidayat, I. Kaniawati, I.

Suwarma, A. Setiabudi, & Suhendra (Eds.), Teori, paradigma, prinsip dan

pendekatan pembelajaran MIPA dalam konteks Indonesia (Theory, Paradigm,

Principle and Approach of Mathematics and Science Learning in Indonesian

Context) (pp. 41–54). Bandung: FPMIPA UPI.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ghavifekr, S., Amy, L. S. H., Hee, F. L., & Tan, M. C. (2014). Head of Departments

As Transformational Leaders in Schools: Issues and Chalenges. Malaysian

Online Journal of Educational Management, 2(3), 119–139.

Ghavifekr, S., Ibrahim, M. S., Chellapan, K., Sukumaran, K., & Subramaniam, A.

(2015). Instructional Leadership Practices of Principal in Vocational and

Technical College: Teachers’ Perception. Malaysian Online Journal of

Educational Management, 3(1), 48–67.

Goh, P. S. C. (2012). The Malaysian Teacher Standards: A look at the Challenges

and Implications for Teacher Educators. Educational Research for Policy and

Practice, 11(2), 73–87. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-011-9107-8

Hadiz, V. R. (2004). Decentralization and democracy in Indonesia: A critique of neo-

institutionalist perspectives. Development and Change, 35(4), 697–718.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0012-155X.2004.00376.x

Halim, R. A., & Ahmad, H. H. (2015). Distributed Leadership, Contextual Factor and

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Malaysia. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational

Management, 3(2), 70–81.

Hallinger, P. (2015). Reflection on our Efforts to Understand Leadership for Learning

in Asia Pacific. Asia Leadership Roundtable.

Hallinger, P., & Chen, J. (2014). Review of research on educational leadership and

management in Asia: A comparative analysis of research topics and methods,

1995-2012. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 5–27.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.803961

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement :

classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes

and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An

International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 22(1), 1–27.

Hamid, S. R. A., Hassan, S. S. S., & Ismail, N. A. H. (2012). Teaching quality and

performance among experienced teachers in Malaysia. Australian Journal of

Teacher Education, 37(11), 85–103. http://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n11.2


Page 22 of 26

Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2002). Improving Educational Quality: How

Best to Evaluate Our Schools. Education in the 21st Century: Meeting the

Challenges of a Changing World.

Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2007). The Role of School Improvement in

Economic Development. NBER Working Paper Series. Retrieved from

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12832

Hariri, H., Monypenny, R., & Prideaux, M. (2014). Principalship in an Indonesian

school context: can principal decision-making styles significantly predict teacher

job satisfaction? School Leadership & Management, 2434(May 2015), 1–19.

http://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.723617

Harris, A. (2015). Leading Educational Effectiveness and Improvement: Critical

Reflections and Future Directions in Asia. In THF Workshop Reports 3: Building

Capacity for School Improvement.

Harris, A., & Jones, M. (Eds.). (2015). Leading Futures: Global Perspectives on

Educational Leadership. Sage Press.

Hendayana, S. (2010). Perkembangan lesson study di Indonesia: prospek dan

tantanganya (Development of lesson study in Indonesia: its prospects and

challenges). In T. Hidayat, I. Kaniawati, I. Suwarma, A. Setiabudi, & Suhendra

(Eds.), Teori, paradigma, prinsip dan pendekatan pembelajaran MIPA dalam

konteks Indonesia (Theory, Paradigm, Principle and Approach of Mathematics

and Science Learning in Indonesian Context) (pp. 11–40). Bandung: FPMIPA

UPI.

Hendayana, S., Suryadi, D., Karim, M. A., Sukirman, Ariswan, Sutopo, …

Joharmawan, R. (2007). Lesson Study: Suatu strategi untuk meningkatkan

keprofesionalan pendidik (Pengalaman IMSTEP-JICA) (Lesson Study: A

Strategy in Improving Educators’ Professionalism (An IMSTEP-JICA

Experience)). Bandung: UPI Press.

Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and

system improvement: a narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness

and School Improvement, 25(2), 257–281.

http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885452

Jamil, H. (2014). Teacher is Matter for Education Quality : A Transformation of Policy

for Enhancing the Teaching Profession in Malaysia. Jornal of International

Cooperation in Education, 16(2), 181–196.

Jamil, H., Razak, N. A., Raju, R., & Mohamed, A. R. (2011). Teacher Professional

Development in Malaysia: Issues and Challenges. Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Retrieved from http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/cice/publications/sosho4_2-08.pdf

Jones, G. W., & Hagul, P. (2001). Schooling in Indonesia: Crisis-Related and Longer-

Term Issues. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 37(2), 207–231.

http://doi.org/10.1080/00074910152390892

Jones, M., Adams, D., Hwee Joo, M. T., Muniandy, V., Perera, C. J., & Harris, A.

(2015). Contemporary challenges and changes: principals’ leadership practices

in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(3), 353–365.

http://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1056591

Kristiansen, S., & Pratikno. (2006). Decentralising education in Indonesia.

International Journal of Educational Development, 26(5), 513–531.


Page 23 of 26

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.12.003

Ladwig, J. G. (2010). Beyond Academic Outcomes. Review of Research in

Education, 34(113).

Lee, M., & Hallinger, P. (2012). National contexts influencing principals’ time use and

allocation: economic development, societal culture, and educational system.

School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 461–482.

http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.678862

Lee, M. N. N. (2002). Teacher Education in Malaysia: Current Issues and Future

Prospects. In Educational Change in Malaysia. University Sains Malaysia.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership

influences student learning. Retrieved from

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-

research/Pages/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.aspx

Li, L. (2015). Collaboration as a Mediator in the Relationship between Principal

Leadership and Teacher Professional Learning: The Hong Kong Experience. In

Asia Leadership Roundtable (pp. 0–42). Bangkok.

Little, A. W. (2001). Multigrade teaching: Towards an international research and

policy agenda. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 481–497.

Luschei, T. F., & Zubaidah, I. (2012). Teacher training and transitions in rural

Indonesian schools: a case study of Bogor, West Java. Asia Pacific Journal of

Education, 32(3), 333–350. http://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.711241

Malaklolunthu, S., & Shamsudin, F. (2011). Challenges in school-based

management: Case of a “cluster school” in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1488–1492.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.316

Malakolunthu, S. (2007). Teacher Learning in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: University of

Malaya Press.

Malakolunthu, S., Idris, A. R., & Rengasamy, N. C. (2010). Teacher professional

experience and performance: impact of the work environment and general

welfare in Malaysian secondary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(4),

609–617. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9108-y

Ministry of Education. (2012). Executive Summary: Malaysia Education Blueprint

2013 - 2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary Education). Putrajaya.

Mokshein, S. E., Ahmad, H. H., & Vongalis-Macrow, A. (2009). Secondary Teacher

Policy Research in Asia: Towards Providing Quality Secondary Education:

Training and Retaining Quality Teacher in Malaysia.

Moreno, J. M. (2005). Learning to Teach in the Knowledge Society. World Bank.

Muijs, R. D., Creemers, B. P. M., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Timperley, H., &

Earl, L. (2014). State of the art – teacher effectiveness and professional

learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, (July 2015).

http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451

National Institute of Education. (2013). School Leadership (Vol. 20).

Ng, D. (2015). Instructional leadership practices in Singapore. School Leadership

and Management, (July).

Pereira, J. D. (2016). Beyond a Single Dimension: A Broad Overview for Thinking

about Teacher Quality Research. In THF Workshop Reports 4: Teacher


Page 24 of 26

Development: Dimensions and Perspectives.

Ponnusamy, P. A. (2010). The Relationship of Instructional Leadership, Teachers’

Organizational Commitment and Students' Achievement in Small Schools.

Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Quah, S. C. (2011). Instructional leadership among principals of secondary schools

in Malaysia. International Research Journals, 2(December), 1784–1800.

Raffe, D. (2011). Policy borrowing or policy learning? How (not) to improve education

systems. Centre for Educational Sociology (CES).

Raihani. (2008). An Indonesian model of successful school leadership. Journal of

Educational Administration, 46(4), 481–496.

http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230810882018

Raman, S. R., & Tan, Y. S. (2010). Ethnic segregation in Malaysia’s education

system: enrolment choices, preferential policies and desegregation.

Paedagogica Historica, 46(1-2), 117–131.

Raman, S. R., & Tan, Y. S. (2014). Educational Issues in Multiethnic Malaysia.

Selangor, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre.

Ree, J. de, Muralidharan, K., Pradhan, M., & Rogers, H. (2015). Double for Nothing?

Experimental Evidence on the Impact of an Unconditional Teacher Salary

Increase on Student Performance in Indonesia.

Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, T., Teddlie,

C., & Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-

of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 197–

230. http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885450

Saito, E., Hawe, P., Hadiprawiroc, S., & Empedhe, S. (2008). Initiating education

reform through lesson study at a university in Indonesia. Educational Action

Research, 16(3), 391–406. http://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802260372

Saito, E., Imansyah, H., Isamu, K., & Hendayana, S. (2007). A study on the

partnership between school and university to improve mathematics and science

education in Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development,

27(2), 194–204.

Saito, E., Imansyah, H., Isamu, K., & Hideharu, T. (2006). Indonesian lesson study in

practice: case study of Indonesian Mathematics Science Teacher Education

Project. Journal of In-Service Education, 32(2), 171–84.

Salleh, M. J., & Mohamad, N. A. (2015). Best Practice of Individual Competences in

Strategic Leadership among Principals of Excellent Secondary. International

Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(6), 1–7.

Sari, E. R. (2012). Teacher Professional Development in an Online Learning

Community: A Case Study in Indonesia. Theses and Dissertations.

Scheerens, J. (2014). School, teaching, and system effectiveness: some comments

on three state-of-the-art reviews. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 25(2), 282–290. http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885453

Sekhu. (2011). Practices of Primary School Principals as Instructional Leaders:

Implications For Learner Achievement. University of Pretoria.

Sharma, S., Sun, H., & Kannan, S. (2012). A Comparative Analysis on Leadership

Qualities of School Principal in China, Malaysia & India. International Online

Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 536–543. Retrieved from


Page 25 of 26

http://www.iojes.net/userfiles/Article/IOJES_862.pdf

Smith, P., & Bell, L. (2014). Leading Schools in Challenging Circumstances. London:

Bloomsbury.

Sofo, F., Fitzgerald, R., & Jawas, U. (2012). Instructional leadership in Indonesian

school reform: overcoming the problems to move forward. School Leadership &

Management, 32(5), 503–522. http://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.723616

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2013). What is wrong with the “what-went-right” approach in

educational policy? European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 20–33.

http://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2013.12.1.20

Suharti. (2013). Trends in Education in Indonesia. In Education in Indonesia.

Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.

Sumintono, B., Sheyoputri, E. Y. a., Jiang, N., Misbach, I. H., & Jumintono. (2015).

Becoming a principal in Indonesia: possibility, pitfalls and potential. Asia Pacific

Journal of Education, 8791(September), 1–11.

http://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1056595

Suratno, T. (2009a). Lesson study in Indonesia: the case of Indonesia university of

education.

Suratno, T. (2009b). Teacher reflection in Indonesia: Lessons learned from a lesson

study program.

Suratno, T. (2012). Lesson study in Indonesia: an Indonesia University of Education

experience. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(3), 196–

215. http://doi.org/10.1108/20468251211256410

Suratno, T., & Cock, K. (2009). A school-university partnership in Indonesia. Lessons

learned from lesson study. In C. P. Lim, K. Cock, G. Lock, & C. Brook (Eds.),

Innovative Practices in Pre-Service Teacher Education: An Asia-Pacific

Perspectives (pp. 69–89). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.

Suratno, T., & Iskandar, S. (2010). Teacher reflection in Indonesia: Lessons learnt

from a lesson study program. US-China Education Review, 7(12), 39–48.

http://doi.org/December 2010

Suraya, W. H., & Yunus, J. N. (2012). Principal Leadership Styles in High-Academic

Performance of Selected Secondary Schools in Kelantan Darulnaim.

International Journal of Independent Research and Studies, 1(2), 57–67.

Retrieved from http://www.pdoaj.com/pdf-files/PA_IJIRS_20120183.pdf

Suryadarma, D., & Jones, G. W. (2013). Meeting the Educational Challenge. In

Education in Indonesia. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.

Suryahadi, A., & Samabodho, P. (2013). An Assessment of Policies to Improve

Teacher Quality and Reduce Teacher Absenteeism. In Education in Indonesia.

Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.

Thomas, C., & Shaw, C. (1992). Issues in the development of multigrade schools. In

World Bank Technical Paper No. 172. Washington: World Bank.

Tie, F. H. (2011). Leadership for Learning in Malaysian Schools. In International

Handbook of Leadership for Learning (pp. 209–223). Netherlands: Springer.

http://doi.org/DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1350-5

UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good? Paris.

Usman, S., Akhmadi, & Suryadarma, D. (2007). Patterns of Teacher Absence in

Public Primary Schools in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(2),


Page 26 of 26

207–219. http://doi.org/10.1080/02188790701378826

Young, M. S. (2010). A Case of the Global-Local Dialectic: Decentralization and

Teacher Training in Banten, Indonesia. Electronic Theses, Treatises and

Dissertations.

Documents

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AS LOCALIZED POLICY: A …_School_Improvement_as... · teacher development literature in may 2016 school improvement as localized policy: a review of the educational