Background: • BOS is a national policy and it does not consider major issue of
regional discrepancy. • The amount of fund allocation does not meet the needs.
Efficiency in BOS (School Operational Costs) Management:
A Comparative Study between Urban and Rural Areas
Some photos at West Bandung
Background: • BOS is a national policy and it does not consider major issue of regional discrepancy. • The amount of fund allocation does not meet the needs.
• Long bureaucratic chain involved in the BOS implementation is an issue of concern. • BOS administration is a long chain.
• Not all school needs can be funded by BOS.
The purpose, The specific objectives, and hypothesis • The purpose of this study is to compare efficiency in BOS management considering differences in school management and fund disbursement. • The specific objectives: to understand the differences of schools perceptions in BOS fund utilization priorities and to observe the efficiency of BOS fund management in Bandung Municipality and West Bandung Regency. • Hypothesis: the efficiency of BOS fund management is different in rural and urban areas.
Methodology • This study used mix method between quantitative and qualitative with PETS (Public Expenditure Tracking Survey) instrument. The step is as follow: 1. Baseline Studies/Desk study. 2. Field Survey. 3. In depth interview. 4. Focus Group Discussion.
Regional Description Bandung
West Bandung
167,67 km2 Comprises of 30 Kecamatan and 151 kelurahan
1.305,77 km2 Comprises of 15 kecamatan and 165 desa
Topography
Relatively flat, makes easy accessibility in this region.
Mountaneous and wavy topography makes low accessibility to this region
Population (2008)
2.329.928 people
1.534.869 people
Population of schooling age
1.550.757 people
1.215.531 people
Area
Population in attending school Not/not yet attend school 11.761 people
18.271 people
Still attend school
381.588 people
208.426 people
No longer attend school
1.577.746 people
988.834 people
BOS fund allocation and its target Year
SD/MI/SDLB (Rupiah)
Target
2005
235,000
Providing aids for poor students (scholarship)
2006
235,000
Providing aids for poor students
2007
254,000
Free tuition fee for poor students Reducing education costs for other students
2008
254,000
Free tuition fee for poor students Reducing education costs for other students
2009
400,000 (kota) 397,000(kab)
Free tuition fee for public elementary schools Providing aid for private schools
School Respondents
The Main Findings on School Management • • • •
BOS application BOS impact School priorities Similarity and differences in managing the BOS fund
BOS application: the respondent did not agree with this three statement: 1. Schools never receive payment of BOS fund late than they should (every 3 months). 2. Juklak/juknis that regulates utilization become a hinder for schools in spending BOS fund. 3. Honorarium given by schools to honorary teachers suffice their needs.
Comparation of Average Value of BOS application No 1 2 3 4 5 6
Statement
Bandung
Schools provide complete dissemination to parents and society 4.497 on BOS Schools never receive payment of BOS fund late than they 2.978 should (every 3 months) Education Service always confirm schools when BOS fund 4.067 would arrive late Schools utilize BOS fund in accordance with juklak/juknis on what should and should not be financed Juklak/juknis that regulates utilization become a hinder for schools in spending BOS fund. BOS fund is utilized inconsistently with stipulation because of emergency reason (for instance, national exam fund arrives late)
West Bandung 4.482 3.067 4.006
4.378
4,289
2.839
2.272
3.442
3.412
7
BOS fund received is insufficient for school operational
3.457
3.452
8
Every teacher knows BOS fund utilization in schools
4.407
4.4
4.111
4.289
2.909
2.836
9 10
Schools hold meetings of BOS fund and the meetings are attended by school committee Honorarium given by schools to honorary teachers suffice their needs
BOS impact: • BOS program is good and having positive impact on schools. Nevertheless, its mechanism and quantity is not in accordance with what expected.
Average Score of the BOS Impact No
The BOS Impact
Bandung’s Average Score
West Bandung ’s Average Score
21
After the BOS is implemented, no more dropout
4.467
4.044
22
After the BOS is implemented, school does not necessary to collect any expenses from students (for public elementary schools)
4.267
4.222
23
After the BOS is implemented, quality of school graduates improves
4.1
3.927
24
After the BOS is implemented, student 4.06 achievements in learning improve
4.113
25
After the BOS is implemented, quality of teacher / instructor improves
4.233
4.14
26
After the BOS is implemented, quality of teaching materials improve
4.309
4.206
Continued Bandung’s Average Score
West Bandung ’s Average Score
No
The BOS Impact
27
After the BOS is implemented, schools have more extracurricular activities
4.318
4.205
28
After the BOS is implemented, quality of Teaching-Learning Activities increasingly improves
4.274
4.178
39
Schools are content with the BOS program mechanism and system
3.533
3.8
30
Schools are content with amount of the 3.178 BOS fund they receive
3.289
School Priorities: • Learning teaching activities and honorary teacher salary become the first and second priorities in both region. • Capacity building for teacher becomes priority in Bandung.
Priority Comparison in BOS Fund Usage Based on Respondent Scoring No
BOS Fund Usage
West Bandung
Priority
Bandung
Priority
1
Learning Teaching Activities
24.00
1
23.11
1
2
Honorary teacher salary
23.56
2
20.44
2
3
Course books
20.00
3
14.22
4
4
Stationery and Office Equipment Improvements in teacher qualities
14.22
4
13.78
5
7.56
5
15.11
3
5 6
Extracurricular activities
4.44
6
3.11
7
7
Building rehabilitations
3.56
7
2.22
8
8
Water, electricity, telephone utilities
2.22
8
4.89
6
9
Official travels, meetings
0.44
9
1.33
10
10
Poor students
0.00
10
1.78
9
11
Goods (refreshments, logistics, etc.)
0.00
10
0.00
11
12
Computers
0.00
10
0.00
11
13
Others
0.00
10
0.00
11
Similarity in School BOS Management between Bandung and West Bandung NO
ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT
1.
Planning
Plan meeting on school funding is performed once a year, at the beginning of school year. The meeting involves School Committee.
2.
Monitoring
The provincial BOS Management Team performs monitoring by sample system.
BANDUNG AND WEST BANDUNG
Schools do not announce statement of the BOS fund usage on school’s announcement board. 3.
Evaluation
Evaluation performed by holding BOS management team’s meeting every three months and at the end of school year.
Difference in BOS Management between Bandung and West Bandung NO
ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT
BANDUNG
WEST BANDUNG
1.
Planning
3 of 15 respondent school involves their School Committees in the meeting on the BOS planning
6 of 15 respondent school involves their School Committees in the meeting on the BOS planning
2.
Organizing
The team consists of Principal, Treasurer, and Committee. The treasurer is the school’s administration staff. He/She is not a teacher.
The team consists of Principal, Treasurer, and Committee. The treasurer doubles as teacher.
Usually record-keeping is performed by computer. The schools are accustomed to manage large funds.
Record-keeping is performed manually. Computerized record-keeping is performed by using rental computer service.
Continued NO
3.
ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT
Implementation
BANDUNG
WEST BANDUNG
School Committee has minor role in decision making. They perform consideration tasks only.
School Committee does not have enough information about the BOS. Only their signature is necessary.
The priorities: 1.Learning Teaching Activities 2.Honorary teacher salary 3.Improvements in teacher qualities 4.Course books 5.Stationery and Office Equipment
The priorities: 1.Learning Teaching Activities 2.Improvements in teacher qualities 3.Course books 4.Stationery and Office Equipment 5.Improvements in teacher qualities
All record-keeping tasks are performed by computer.
Not all schools perform data computerization. Schools with a few students have no computer yet.
The Main findings on BOS Fund Disbursement 1. Tardiness in delivering the fund: from State Budget’s account to school’s bank account (long data-collection chains) and school’s bank account to be used by BOS Management Team at school (school financial reports). 2. Fund discount: this contribution becomes a kind of discount, which is agreed by schools, to finance UPTD activities that involve schools. 3. Difference in budget year and academic year: budget year is from January to December and academic year is from June to July.
Conclusions 1.
There is no significant difference between efficiency of BOS fund utilization in urban and rural areas.
2.
In general, BOS fund utilization efficiency in urban areas is slightly better than that of rural areas in terms of financial management and involvement of school committee. Otherwise, involvement of school committees is still limited to provide consideration, instead of being policy maker.
3.
The late of fund disbursement is because of the long datacollection chains and difficulties in preparing school financial reports.
4.
More that 20% of BOS is used to pay honorary teacher salary, however, it does not influence to BOS fund efficiency.
Recommendations 1.
Simplification of student data-collection. It is to minimize delay of disbursement.
2. Capacity building of school BOS Management Team (strategic management for headmasters, finance management for treasures, advocacy management for schools committee include parents) 3. Promoting local governments to allocate salary for honorary teachers from Local Budget, instead of BOS. 4. Building communication between Schools, School Committee, Parents. 5. Strengthening parents association for monitoring schools and the use of BOS fund.
Thank You
