1

The Quality Improvement of Primary Children Learning through a School-Based Programme in Indonesia

Laurens Kaluge Setiasih

Harjanto Tjahjono

Universitas Surabaya East Java, Indonesia

2004

Research Paper

2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgements

1. Background of the Quality Improvement Programme

2. The Sidoarjo School Improvement Programme

3. Methods of the Study

4. The Description of Data

5. Findings and Discussion

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

References

Appendices

3

Abstract

This paper reports the evaluation results of a school-based quality improvement programme

called SSIP in East Java, Indonesia. In terms of equity, the evaluation took into account

variables such as gender, age, and family social economic status referred to parental

education and occupation. The programme focused on Social Studies in Grade 3 and 4

primary schools. The main problem was: after controlling for the pupil, class, and school

factors did the programme improve the quality of schools? There were 19 experimental and

15 control schools identified on the basis of local clusters included in the study. Thus the

study followed used a quasi-experimental design and multilevel modelling techniques (using

pupil, classroom and school as the levels) were used to analyse the data. Even though not all

of the results were consistently evident across all analyses the following influences were

generally identified. Prior attainment (for Grade 3 and 4), ability, gender, father education,

parental occupation, self-concept, democratic attitudes, locus of control were significant

variables at pupil level. Classroom management was important at the class level.

Formalisation, teacher affiliation, and work pressure were important factors for the children’s

progress at the school level. The experimental schools achieved better than the control

schools. Before entering any factor, the variance explained at the class and school level

ranged between 16.3 and 29.4% for Grade 3 and 27.3 to 46.2% for Grade 4. After including

the significant factors in the analysis, the contribution of the final model ranged from 16.3 to

36.8 % for Grade 3 and 27.8 to 50.3% for Grade 4. The success of such an educational

improvement programme is optimistic sign for the future.

4

Acknowledgement

This is a report on the evaluation of a school-based programme in order to improve the

quality of children learning. Since the initiation of the programme until finishing this study

the researchers are grateful to many institutions taking part in different time, ways and places.

Firstly, The Universitas Surabaya and FINED as sponsors for the programme. Secondly, the

office of education such as District Kanwil and Local Kandep Diknas as superordinate of

schools which positively support to the activities of the programme. Thirdly, schools,

principals, teachers, and pupils as the main actors in the programme.

5

1. Background of the Quality Improvement Programme

1.1 Current problems of Education in Indonesia

The Republic of Indonesia has achieved general education for almost all children in

Indonesia. However there are several problems in education to be discussed for research and

improvement projects. The important problems are the effectiveness and efficiency of

education. With effectiveness is meant the effects of schools, teachers and education in

general on the student achievement. The effectiveness is reflected in the outcomes as

measured by standardised tests, number of students promoted to the next grade after taking

into account the background of students, their prior knowledge and the socio-economic status

(see Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000; Creemers, 1994a; Gray & Wilcox, 1995). In general the

output of education has been lower than expected, especially in more disadvantaged areas. In

this case, the great discrepancy between schools need to be considered. Some schools are

doing quite well but there are also schools that perform quite poorly.

The efficiency of education is negatively influenced by the amount of grade

repetition, dropouts and there are indications that schools cannot attain their objectives in a

given time-framework and that the cost of education increases with spending more time in

attaining the goals for specific children (Scheerens, 1992; Thomas, 1992; World Bank, 1998;

Unicef, 2000). The former projects such as Primary Education for Quality Improvement

Project (PEQIP), and the Basic Education Project (BEP) tried to increase the effectiveness

and the efficiency of education. As is known from other international and national project

studies, the effectiveness of education is especially related to the instructional processes at

classroom level and the organisation of the school. In this respect, the major problems of

Indonesian education become clear. The problems concern the instructional processes such as

objectives and content of instruction, the activities of students and the supportive conditions

at the school level. The ordinary classroom in Indonesia is characterised by a low degree of

activity of children. They are sitting in rows, not actively involved in the learning process.

One of the reasons might be that the instructional process is not attractive, not well structured

and doesn't contain the other characteristics which make instruction effective. In terms of

equity, it is also not related to the differences between children because the instruction treats

the classroom as a whole and is not adapted to the needs of specific children. In project for

Active Learning through Professional Support (ALPS) this issue was partly aimed at

increasing the involvement of children in learning activities (Tangyong, Wahyudi, Gardner,

6

& Hawes, 1989). Other characteristics, however, of effective instruction were somewhat

disregarded in this project.

One of the causes of poor learning achievement of students in Indonesia is the

centralized curriculum, which is ineffective. The central ruling about the curriculum cause

limited teacher creativity. A second problem is the inadequate assessment of student

achievement. So far, efforts to improve student achievement have focused almost exclusively

on inputs, such as teacher training, curriculum revision and provision of textbooks. But

students, teachers and principals do not work hard together with the intention to achieve the

objects of education. A third problem is the lack of teaching and learning materials. Several

studies pointed out that there is a bad distribution of the textbook and if the textbooks are

available, many times students and teachers don’t know the proper use of the books. Another

problem is the number and quality of the teachers. A number of studies indicate that teacher

competency in Indonesia is low. Consequently, many Indonesian teachers working in primary

schools have educational qualifications lower than formally required.

The quality of education is not only related to the curriculum delivery and

instructional technology but also the content of education and instruction itself. The

objectives and content of Indonesian education is academically focussed. The academic

subjects (mathematics, language and science) in the majority of schools are not related to

daily life experiences of children nor can what is learned be practiced in daily life again. In

the cognitive domain basic knowledge and skills are addressed, but there is not much

attention for higher order skills, like analysing, synthesising and the evaluation of knowledge.

Furthermore there is little attention for educational objectives in other domains (aesthetic,

social, affective and moral). In daily life however children deal with more than cognitive

knowledge and skills alone, they have to deal with social, cultural and moral situations as

well. It can be expected from education that education at least provides a cognitive basis to

deal with this kind of topics.

One of the causes of poor learning achievement of pupils in Indonesia is the

centralized curriculum, which is ineffective. The central ruling about the curriculum causes

limited teacher creativity. Another problem is the inadequate assessment of pupil

achievement. So far, efforts to improve pupil achievement have focused almost exclusively

on inputs, such as teacher training, curriculum revision and provision of textbooks. But

pupils, teachers and principals do not work hard together with the intention to achieve the

objects of education. A third problem is the lack of teaching and learning materials. Several

7

studies pointed out that there is a bad distribution of the textbook and if the textbooks are

available, many times pupils and teachers don’t know the proper use of the books. Another

problem is the number and quality of the teachers. A number of studies indicate that teacher

competency in Indonesia is low. Consequently, many Indonesian teachers working in primary

schools have educational qualifications lower than formally required (Thomas, 1992;

Supriyoko, 2002; Suparno, 2002).

Indicators of the inefficiency of education in Indonesia are the repetition rates, the

dropout rates and the non-completion rates. One of the causes of the inefficiency is the

economic crisis and dropout rates in earlier grades. Because of the crisis many parents have

low income and don’t have enough money for the education of their child. Dropout rates are

especially high in the higher grades (Unicef, 2000).

Students repeat because they cannot achieve the minimum standard of academic

achievement, but repeating is also closely related to the child’s readiness. The attendance at

pre-school or kindergarten has a positive impact on student’s performance. However, only a

small proportion of children attend kindergarten or pre-school programs. Internal inefficiency

also seems to be a problem (Unicef, 2000).

Surakhmad (1999) prescribes a practical-technical approach to solve current problems

in Indonesian education. For better education there should be a future oriented policy, a

democratic foundation of education, a predominantly pioneering approach and a

decentralized, community base management of education. The project of SSIP also uses other

approaches, which set priorities in improving the curriculum and improving teacher

competencies, in order to improve Indonesian primary education.

1.2 Former school improvement projects in Indonesia

Several school effectiveness projects (Kaluge, 1999; Ministry of Education, 1998) are

considered as the background for SSIP. A study by BP3K sponsored by the Indonesian

Ministry of Education and Culture (Setijadi, Moegiadi, Wiradinata & Elley, 1978) concluded

that the largest influence on student achievement were the indices of classroom climate.

Another important conclusion made was that the students in city schools achieved better than

the students of the rural schools. The results of this study were used as some starting

considerations for innovation in Indonesian primary education, known as CBSA (student

active learning), introduced by the ALPS project (Tangyong, Wahyudi, Gardner & Hawes,

1989).

8

Suryadi (1992) conducted another Indonesian study under the sponsorship of the

Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture and USAID to improve primary schools. He

found that home and community variables affected variation more than the school quality

variables. The study was held in three provinces over 5790 random sampled students. Quality

and length of the instruction time were found out to be the most strongest policy manipulable

predictors of student achievement. Positive factors to higher student achievement were

reading books, peers discussion, teaching through reading, the use of teaching materials and

class discussions. Lecturing by the teacher was a negative factor to higher student

achievement. Some of these studies suffered from severe methodological problems, because

they failed to considered important baseline variables (Kaluge, 1999).

The Primary Education Quality Improvement Project (Ministry of Education, 1998)

focused on the training of tutors and subject matter specialist, who then in their turn had to

train teachers. Focus of the study was the professional development of teachers, the

educational management, books, learning materials and evaluation and monitoring. PEQIP

affected the quality of education in terms of student outcomes. However, differences between

PEQIP schools and non-PEQIP schools were small. The implementation time was too short.

The quality of instruction (the professional development of teachers) turned out to be the

most important factor to higher student achievement. The PEQIP-model was not effective

from an implementation point of view. Therefore, the authors made recommendations on

several levels. The focus of the principals is too much focused on administrative tasks and to

little on educative tasks. The training of teachers should focus on characteristics of effective

teaching. The involvement of community and parents deserves further attention. Good

textbooks that are actually available and used in classrooms, as well as teaching aids and

learning materials, are important vehicles for educational improvement.

The SSIP uses information of all these studies. The programme was meant for all

demographic types of schools and would be conducted on a small number of schools.

Teachers would be trained in order to make a better class climate and to improve the quality

of instruction. Principals would be involved in order to let them focus on educational tasks,

instead of administrative tasks. Group discussions would be held. Teaching materials would

be used. Intake variables would be taken care of.

9

2. The Sidoarjo School Improvement Programme

2.1 The Programme Objectives

The Sidoarjo School Improvement Programme (SSIP) used information of all those previous

studies. The programme was meant for all demographic types of schools and was conducted

on a small number of schools. Teachers were trained in order to make a better class climate

and to improve the quality of instruction. Principals were involved in order to let them focus

on educational tasks, instead of administrative tasks. Group discussions were held. Teaching

materials were used. Intake variables were taken into account.

Education in Indonesia is characterised by the fact that there are very strong central

guidelines with respect to the objectives and content of education. The room for

experimentation for individual schools is quite small. The only part that is more flexible and

more open is the local content part. Because this programme was only a pilot project, it was

decided to situate the project within this local content part in order to improve the quality of

education for that part of the curriculum. This programme was aimed at improving quality in

schools. There were four specified objectives:

• develop and implement objectives in cognitive, social and affective domains,

especially the synergy between the three domains

• develop up to date learning opportunities in the form of teaching-learning packages

and implement those packages in educational practice

• improve the quality of instruction within the programmes by improving the

methodology and the procedures of instruction, stressing more active involvement of

pupils, more adaptivity (related to specific needs of individual pupils) and improve

instructional methodology of the teacher.

• improve the conditions for classroom learning and teaching at the school level to

support improvement establish school – University partnership.

The knowledge basis for this programme is provided by research in different areas

and especially educational practice, which was evaluated. The specific characteristics of this

programme was that it was not restricted to one kind of knowledge basis or a certain topic

within the curriculum but it tried to combine different knowledge bases from different areas.

The main areas were (i) school improvement (ii) curriculum development and (iii) teaching

strategies.

10

2.2 School improvement.

Of course the improvement has to reach the children and that goes through the

classroom where teaching and learning take place. But in order to achieve classroom

effectiveness, conditions at school level have to be fulfilled, such as support at the school

through teaching materials and the supervision of teacher's teaching and the monitoring of

teachers' and pupils' progress. It also includes that the support given by the experts of the

teacher training institution and the universities. The support was provided in the school.

Teachers were not be taken out of their school and out of their classes. The supervision of

teachers and the guidance and monitoring was done through feedback on the actual classroom

behaviour. This can be done by the principal but also by external facilitators. Schools have to

develop an organisation within the school where innovation and improvement can take place

and is supported. There are different strategies for school improvement based on studies by

Stoll and Fink (1996), Hopkins (1990), Gray and Wilcox (1995), Gray, Reynolds, Fitz-

Gibbon and Jesson (1996). The main focus were the change of quality of teaching and

learning at classroom level by creating an organisation planning, implementing and

evaluating the process of teaching and learning in schools. Specific strategies which turned

out to be effective for teacher improvement was used, such classroom consultancy where

teachers immediately got feedback after the teaching about their teaching.

2.3 Curriculum development.

It is well-known that curriculum on paper doesn't work and that the final proof of the

curriculum is in the implementation of it. Curriculum Research resulted in some principles

can guide the development of materials. Materials should be well structured, clearly focused

and provide a lot of practical suggestions for activities, evaluation, feedback and adaptation

to individual needs. The curriculum was developed to be up to date and reflect the

environment where children live in. This was based on "old philosophies about education"

(Dewey) and new theories about the construction of knowledge by pupils themselves and

theories and experiences with real life mathematics and other real life educational

programmes (the constructivist approach).

2.4 Teaching strategies.

Educational research increased our knowledge about effective instruction, especially

on strategies which teachers could use to start, maintain and evaluate learning of pupils.

11

Characteristics of effective instruction can be found in the curriculum materials (learning

packages), the grouping of pupils in the classroom and - especially- the instructional activities

of teachers (Creemers 1994a, 1997). Although mastery learning was a very effective way of

grouping, in this programme we chose collaborative learning (Slavin, 1996) in order to

achieve certain goals. To increase teaching effectiveness the model of direct instruction

(Rosenshine, 1987) was applied with - if possible - some more constructivist approaches

(Creemers, 1994b; Creemers & Reezigt, 1996).

2.5 Activities.

The pilot project consisted of the following interrelate activities. Firstly, exchanging

information and finalising the project plan. The activity information was done by experts

from the IKIP/university (teacher training institution). The expert (supervisor) provided

further information about the different components comprised the project. This was discussed

because, finally, schools together with the experts had to agree on the project plan and the

activities. Secondly, the development of curriculum materials (the teaching-learning

packages). This was done by teams of teachers and principals within the gugus (school

cluster), depending on the number of gugus and schools which participate. Teams of teachers

and principals within the gugus (school cluster) had to develop about 6 packages, three for

each Grade 3 and 4. The development of the packages was supervised by the experts of the

universities. It was expected that different phases of construction were necessary: 1) draft, (2)

presentation and discussions to other participants who have to work with it as well, (3)

improvement based on critique, (4) pilot testing in different grade level and schools, (5) final

form, and (6) production of materials. Thirdly, training the teachers and principals. These

activity started immediately and continued throughout the whole project (in all stages).

Fourthly, the implementation of the curriculum. In this activity the teachers carried out the

package. This was supervised by the principal. In this way teachers got immediate feedback

from the experts. Gradually the principal took over this task from the experts. Fifthly,

evaluation. In the evaluation information was collected about the opinions of teachers,

principals and students concerning the packages in order to improve the curriculum and

finally the achievement of students in different areas. The information was analysed. Sixthly,

reporting. The development of materials (phase I), was reported separately from the

implementation of the materials in the second phase. The intention was also to publish a final

report which addresses also the question of school/educational improvement in this project. It

12

gave recommendations for future school improvement projects (based on the results of

students and teachers).

13

3. Methods of the Study

3.1 Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this study was providing information on to what extent school had been

improved by introducing the SSIP after taking into account the pupil, class, and school

factors. In more specific, the objectives of the study were attempting to answer the following

research questions:

1) what were the meaningful variables at pupil, class, and school levels that

differentiate the children progress in learning the social studies?

2) did the experimental schools (those that implement the programme) achieve success

and how big the variation accounted for the pupil and school or class levels?

3.2 Sample

This programme is located in the Sidoarjo-district, south of the city of Surabaya,

Indonesia. In this programme, it was chosen three sub-districts where in each has school

clusters named gugus. The participating subdistricts were Sidoarjo (urban characteristic),

Krian (sub-rural characteristic) and Krembung (rural characteristic). Each gugus was divided

into experiment schools and control schools. Table 3.1 shows the number of schools per

gugus. The number of control schools of Gugus Krian is low. Due to circumstances it was not

possible to arrange more control schools.

Table 3.1 Number of participating schools

Experiment Schools Control Schools Sidoarjo 7 5 Krian 6 3 Krembung 6 7 Total number of schools 19 15

The teachers in Grade 3 and 4 had an average age of 43 years. The teachers of

experiment schools were in average one year younger than the control teachers. 81% of the

teachers was female (88% at the experiment schools and 74% at the control schools). Both

experiment and control school teachers have an average experience in teaching of 13 years.

The average order of promotion rank between experiment and control schools was almost the

14

same. All differences between teachers of experiment and control schools were not

significant.

These 34 schools contained 1884 pupils in Grade 3 and 4. In this report a sample of

1547 pupils were used. During the testing some pupils were absent. Therefore in this section

only results of pupils who were present at all the tests (Intelligence Test, Content Related

Test in Cawu* 1 & 2, pupil background, Smiley Test) would be used. There was also an

outliers test conducted, as well as a distribution test. This way, the number of the pupils was

reduced to 1547. The number of these pupils per gugus per grade was shown in Table 3.2 and

were used in all results in this report.

Table 3.2 Number of participant pupils

Grade 3 Grade 4 Total Experiment

Schools Control Schools Experiment

Schools Control Schools

Sidoarjo 154 138 137 100 Krian 195 31 165 37 Krembung 94 169 114 213

Total number of pupil

443

338

416

350

1547

The average age of the pupils in Grade 3 was at time of measuring 7 years and 5

months. The average age of the pupils in Grade 4 at the same time was 8 years and 7 months.

There were more male than female pupils in the schools, except for the experiment schools of

Gugus Krembung. The experiment schools have 52% male pupils; the control schools have

53% male pupils. Gugus Krembung was showing the most equal distribution between male

and female pupils. Differences between experiment and control schools and between gugus

were not significant according to a Chi-square calculation.

The 34 schools were divided between 19 experiment and 15 control schools. Average

age of the teachers is 44 years old. In experiment schools 28% of the teachers was male, in

control schools this was 34%. The average order of promotion rank between experiment and

control schools is almost the same. The teachers in the experiment schools have overall less

experience in teaching than the teachers in the control schools (12.39 years vs. 12.77 years).

All differences in information about the teachers between experiment and control schools

were not significant.

* School term on the basis of four months.

15

3.3 Instruments and data collection

The data were collected using intelligence test and pupil background questionnaire for

obtaining data on gender, age, parental education and occupation. The prior scores were

obtained from the school archives using the same test on the same time for all the school

gugus. Whereas, the content-related tests (CRT) were developed by a team consisted of

teachers and university staff members. ISERP scales (Creemers, 1997; Teddlie & Reynolds,

2000) translated, validated based on pupil answers. For teaching process in the classroom, the

Virgilio’s scales (Teddlie, Virgilio, & Oescher, 1990) were translated, validated, and used.

Whereas for school level, related to organizational atmosphere the SLEQ developed by

Rentoul and Fraser (1983) was modified and validated with an additional dimension i.e work

pressure.

The data came from three smaller school-cohorts, named gugus in the Sidoarjo-

district, south of the city of Surabaya, Indonesia. The gugus were Sidoarjo (as urban district),

Krian (as sub-rural district) and Krembung (as rural district). Each gugus consisted of

experiment schools (with treatment) and control schools (without any intervention). Table 1

shows the number of schools per gugus. The number of control schools of Gugus Krian is

low. Due to circumstances it was not possible to arrange more control schools.

3.4 Data analysis

Multilevel analysis was used to answer the research questions. Since the first use of

multilevel analysis in School Matters (Mortimore, Sammons, Stoll, Lewis, & Ecob, 1988),

then followed by many studies, it has been recognised that the statistical package of MLwiN

enables more efficient estimates of school differences in pupil attainment. Because multilevel

analysis is relatively new, some typical equations and explanations are presented in this

section. The analysis took into account the hierarchical structure of the data in which pupils

are nested within classes/schools. The multilevel analysis can be regarded as the extension of

single level regression analysis by considering more than one source of variation (e.g

variation of pupils in level 1 and of school in level 2). Aitkin and Longford (1986)

established important bases for comparing school effectiveness after the adjustment of intake

differences in individual level. The bases were regarded in the following phases of analysis.

16

3.4.1 Starting null model

The first simplest one was the null model which only estimated the total variance and

its components. In this model the scores were regressed on the constant term (coded 1 for

every pupil). In addition the constant term was set at random at both the pupil and school

levels. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the overall mean achievement at both intake

and at the end of school year and also to see whether there were any school differences in

mean achievement. The intra-school correlation (the proportion of the total variance which

was between schools) was also computed from the random estimates.

The model fitted was (based on Goldstein, 1995; Snijders & Bosker, 1999):

Yij = ojxo + eoijxo

with βoj = αoo + uoj (between school variation)

where

i = pupil j = school yij = pupil’s attainment xo = the intercept term (constant) with a value of 1 for every pupil αoo = overall mean attainment uoj = school level residual eoij = pupil level residual

Thus the model can be summarised as follows:

Yij = βo + (uoj + eoij) fixed random The following parameters were estimated by model 1:

βo = overall average attainment

σ2oe = pupil level variance i.e between pupils within schools variation σ2ou = between school variance The intra-school correlation was given by the formula:

ρ = σ2ou / ( σ2ou + σ2oe) This correlation measured the proportion of the total variation that was due to schools and

also the degree of similarity of the pupils within a school. The larger the value of ρ the

greater the clustering and the more important it was to use a fully efficient estimation

procedure (Goldstein, 1995 ).

17

3.4.2 Exploring the model at the fixed part

A model reduction procedure of omitting predictors that did not contribute to the

variation in achievement would refine the model into a 'minimal' model. A stepwise

procedure was used in analysing the data i.e. one or a group of related variables were entered

at a time starting with the simplest models and then building up to more complex models.

Any predictor that did not contribute to the variance in attainment would be omitted to refine

the model. Levels of significance under the 95 per cent confidence interval were obtained if

the estimate was equal to or greater than double standard error (Patterson, 1991; Woodhouse,

Rasbash, Goldstein, & Yang, 1996).

Model 1 was extended by the inclusion of explanatory variables measured at pupil,

class and school level. The purpose of fitting this model was to find out which of the pupil,

class and school factors had significant effect on attainment.

The model was represented by the equation:

Yij = βoij xo + β1 x1ij + ... + βn xnij

with βoij = βo + uoj + eoij

where

i = pupil j = school Yij = response variables x1ij ... xnij = explanatory variable (eg gender, age, etc) uoj = school/class level residual eoij = pupil level residual β0 = constant (intercept term) β1 ... βn = regression coefficient

Some models were developed using the equation above. After performing the null

model, the modelling stages dealing with explanatory variables were consecutively entered:

initial scores as baseline, child background and characteristics, class and school variables.

Then the variances attributable to school and pupil were checked.

3.4.3 Identifying the quality improvement

The third stage was the identification of school success for each teaching unit using

the residuals estimates and their associated confidence limits which pinpointed those schools

18

performing better or worse than expected from their intake (p<0.05). Some explorations in

this phase were plotting the school’s mean raw score for the relevant outcome. In this case,

the distinction of the experiment and control schools (in dummy variable) was needed.

19

4. The Description of Data

4.1 Pupil age and gender

The average age of the children in Grade 3 was at time of measuring 7 years and 5

months old (SD = 18.78 months). The average age of the children in Grade 4 at the same time

was 8 years and 7 months old (SD = 17.17 months).

There were more male than female children in the schools (see Table A3.1.1), except

for the experiment schools of Gugus Krembung. The experiment schools had 52% male

pupils; the control schools had 53% male pupils. Gugus Krembung was showing the most

equal distribution between male and female pupils. Differences between experiment and

control schools and between gugus were not significant according to a Chi-square

calculation.

4.2 Parent’s education and occupation

The education and occupation of parents were shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.4. The level

of education of the father was higher than the level of education of the mother. Differences

between experiment and control schools were according to a Chi-square test only significant

for Grade 3, education and work of mothers (the Chi-square test on education of the mother

showed one cell (5.6 %) with an expected value lower than 5.

Concerning the education of the father, the graphs showed not much difference

between experiment and control schools, but different between the gugus. Gugus Krian

showed a higher percentage in primary finished, Gugus Krembung showed a higher

percentage in secondary finished and Gugus Sidoarjo showed a higher percentage in tertiary

finished. The same trend was shown with the education of the mother. There were not many

differences between experiment and control schools. Gugus Krian showed a higher

percentage in primary finished, Gugus Krembung showed a higher percentage in secondary

finished and Gugus Sidoarjo shows a higher percentage in secondary senior finished and

tertiary finished. Half of the mothers had only been into primary education or had no

education at all. In contrary, half of the fathers had been into (senior) secondary education.

20

tertiary finished

tertiary not finishe

senior secondary fin

senior secondary not

secondary finished secondary not finish

primary finished

primary not finished

no education

Figure 4.1: Education of fathers

clerical & professio

skilled manual

unskilled manual

Figure 4.3: Father occupation

teritiary finished

tertiary not finishe

senior secondary fin

senior secondary not

secondary finished

secondary not finish

primary finished

primary not finished

no education

Figure 4.2: Education of mothers

clerical & professio

skilled manual

unskilled manual

non-earning

Figure 4.4: Mother occupation

21

The categories for parent occupation showed the sector the parent works. This was a nominal

category. Nothing could be said about earning. For instance, if a person works as a farmer he

could work on the rice-field and earn not much or he could own the rice-field and earn much

more. This was also possible in the category of clerical/professional: it couldnot be clear if a

person worked as a secretary or was director of a company.

The work of the parents was shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. In the work of the father,

experiment schools scored higher in unskilled manual than the control schools. Gugus Krian

showed the highest percentage in unskilled manual. Gugus Krembung had the highest

percentage in skilled manual. Gugus Sidoarjo had the highest percentage in clerical and

professional. Mothers of the children in experiment schools were more non-earning than in

control schools, where more mothers work in the clerical/professional category. More than half

of the mothers of Gugus Sidoarjo were non-earning, in contrast with Gugus Krian, where more

mothers worked in the category of unskilled manual class. In Gugus Krembung and Gugus

Sidoarjo a larger part worked in the clerical/professional category than in Gugus Krian.

Differences between Grade 3 and 4 were only not significant for Reaction to a good

report. The importance of the mother in all three other categories (Homework control; Study

help and Schoolwork control) was bigger than the father. Especially in Study help brothers or

sisters were important. In Grade 3 the mothers of children in experiment schools were more

important with study help than those in the control schools. Brothers or sisters in the control

schools were much more important than in the experiment schools, concerning the study help.

More children of the experiment schools do without study help. Fewer children of experiment

schools in Grade 4 did without any control of their homework. Concerning the study help in

Grade 4 this was the other way around. The mothers of children in control schools were more

important for the control of the schoolwork than those in experiment schools. More children of

the experiment schools did without control of the schoolwork than in those control schools.

Children of the schools got praised a lot as a reaction to a good report, but even got more

praised, together with getting presents. Most of the parents did give one of these reactions.

4.3 Intelligence scores

The average scores on the intelligence tests in Grade 3 were almost the same, despite

the differences within the different gugus. Between the gugus differences were significant.

22

Gugus Sidoarjo scored the highest, after Gugus Krembung and Gugus Krian. In Grade 4 the

average scores on the intelligence test between experiment and control schools were significant

different: experiment schools score higher. The same trend as with Grade 3 was shown for

differences between the gugus. Differences between the gugus were significant. The

intelligence test was separated into an inclusion part and an exclusion part.

Figure 4.5: Average score on Intelligence Test, Grade 3

Figure 4.6: Average score on Intelligence Test, Grade 4

4.4 The learning achievement

The scores in the Cawu-tests were first rounded into whole numbers. After rounding, the

numbers were used for calculation. In the preceding year there were some results of Cawu 3.

Every time Cawu 3 was mentioned, it’s meant Cawu 3 of the preceding year. The scores on

Social Studies (IPS) in Cawu 1 and 2 are shown in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. For Grade 4 also the

scores on IPS in Cawu 3 were placed. These scores were not available for Grade 3, because the

subject IPS starts in Grade 3. The higher score on IPS (Cawu 2) by experiment schools was

significant. The same thing applied to the scores on Bahasa Indonesia, where in Cawu 3 control

schools score higher and in Cawu 1 experiment schools score higher. In Grade 4 differences in

scores on IPS (Cawu 1 and 2, experiment schools scored higher) were significant.

23

Table 4.1 Scores on IPS in Cawu 1 & 2, Grade 3

Cawu 1 Cawu 2* Experiment

Schools Control Schools

Experiment Schools

Controls Schools

Sidoarjo 6.76 6.61 6.60 6.41 Krian 6.69 7.26 6.50 6.23 Krembung 6.57 6.79 6.69 6.47

Average 6.69 6.76 6.58 6.42 * Differences between experiment and control schools are significant on a .05-level Table 4.2 Scores on IPS in Cawu 3, Cawu 1 & 2, Grade 4

Cawu 3 Cawu 1* Cawu 2* Experiment

Schools Control Schools

Experiment Schools

Control Schools

Experiment Schools

Control Schools

Sidoarjo 6.67 6.09 6.47 6.45 6.60 6.38 Krian 6.80 6.09 6.37 6.30 6.60 6.32 Krembung 6.91 7.13 6.83 6.32 6.89 6.49

Average 6.79 6.62 6.53 6.36 6.68 6.44 * Differences between experiment and control schools are significant on a .05-level

Content Related Test. The average scores on the Content Related Test (CRT) are

shown in Figures 4.7 and 4.8. From these figures, one can easily find out the experiment

schools score higher than the control schools, both on Grade 3 and Grade 4. The differences in

Grade 4 were higher than in Grade 3. These were scores on the three content related tests,

together with their standard deviations. The differences between the experiment and control

schools were significant, but the differences between the gugus were not significant.

* Differences between experiment and control schools are significant on a .05-level Figure 4.7: Content Related Test, Grade 3

* Differences between experiment and control schools are significant on a .05-level Figure 4.8: Content Related Test, Grade 4

24

4.5 The non-cognitive scores

For reading the data of the Smiley Test, it’s important to know this test scores minimum

at zero (0.00, this was shown by a negative “smiley”) and maximum at four (4.00, this was

shown by a positive “smiley”) for the subjects of pupil academic attitudes, self-concept & IPS

and democratic attitude. For the subject of locus of control this test scored minimum zero (0.00)

for external and maximum one (1.00) for internal. Differences between Grade 3 and 4 were not

significant for the subject of democratic attitude, the other subjects showed an increase from

Grade 3 to 4 in the average scores.

On locus of control, differences were not significant for Grade 3 and 4. On the other

subjects children of the experiment schools scored higher than the children on control schools.

These differences were all significant, except for Grade 4. Per subject, this meant that children of

the experiment schools had a more positive general attitude (grade 3), have a better impression

about themselves and IPS (Grade 3 & 4) and showed better democratic attitudes (Grade 3 & 4).

Differences between gugus were all significant. The children of Gugus Krembung scored

lowest on general attitude, on self-concept & IPS and on democratic attitude. Gugus Sidoarjo

scored highest on general attitude and on self-concept & IPS, but lowest on locus of control.

Gugus Krian scored highest on democratic attitude and on locus of control.

4.6 The children opinion on content and process

Answers on the opinion questionnaire for children were shown in percentages and

differences were shown between gugus. The topic preference of the children in Grade 3 went to

“Village map” (45%), but this topic was also the less preference (40%). The not very popular

seemed to be topic Home environment. School environment scored also quite good. In Grade 4

the most popular topic was Knowledge about the Indonesian map (50%). Provinces of Indonesia

scores 35% on preference. Children prefered the topic of Majapahit kingdom at least (67% on

least preference).

On the choices of activities, children in Grade 3 were given for homework preference, 48%

chose making a map of the house. Also some children enjoyed writing prose (25%). In Grade 4

children prefered making a scale sized map to writing prose.

25

In Grade 3 group work was the most popular class activity (56%). Also popular was

filling in crossword puzzles (22%). Grade 4 showed almost the same: group work scored 41%

and filling in crossword puzzles scored 39%. The other activities in Grade 3 and 4 scored lower.

Differences in the answers for part II between the three gugus were according to Chi-square

calculations in most cases significant for Grade 3, in most cases for Grade 4 they were not

significant (this is noted at each answer/table). Looking at the scores per school, lower scores

(high scores were scores in favor of the project’s objects) in Grade 3 could be explained by the

low scores of some schools, in Grade 4 lower scores were the cause of general lower scores by

all schools.

In Grade 3 Gugus Krembung scored many times higher, Krian scored many times lower.

Lower scores by Krian were partly explained by two teachers who did not follow the SSIP-

method, but keep using the old way of teaching. Lower scores in Gugus Sidoarjo were partly

caused by the answers of children of a very big class.

In Grade 4 it’s more difficult to determine which schools were cause of lower scores. In

Gugus Sidoarjo, one school was not enthusiastic about the SSIP-method, one school still used the

old way of teaching and for one school qualitative information couldn’t explain lower scores. In

Gugus Krian qualitative information was not clear about the reason why these schools score

lower. Bad class management may be the cause of lower scores here. Lower scores in Gugus

Krembung were partly caused by a school who didn’t follow the SSIP-method.

Teachers still seemed to have trouble with asking questions on that way that the children

understand it: many children thought the questions of the teachers were difficult (38% in Grade

3, 34% in Grade 4). Still 39% of the children in Grade 3 and 27% of the children in Grade 4

were confused by the questions of their teacher. Not all children seemed like working in a group.

In Grade 3 69% and in Grade 4 65% of the children said they like working in a group. For the

other questions, the scores were high, except for the schools mentioned above.

4.7 The classroom process

Vergilio was observed once. After the programme lessons ended, observers of the

programme were asked to fill in the Vergilio questionnaire once again, now not as an

observation, but as an overall conclusion. This was called the post-observation. Differences

between the observation and the post-observation were not significant. Therefore both

26

questionnaires can be used for processing data. In total 82 observations were made in experiment

schools, 32 observations were made in control schools. There was no post-observation in the

control schools, because the student-assistants visited these schools only once, so one can’t speak

of an overall conclusion. Vergilio has three-points scale, scoring one (1.00) for never appeared,

two (2.00) for sometimes appeared and three (3.00) for many times appeared. Missing values

were replaced by the mean. Vergilio was parted into three factors: instruction, management, and

climate. Differences between experiment and control schools were not significant for instruction,

but were significant for management and climate. On management, experiment schools score on

average 2.26, control schools score on average 2.00. On climate, experiment schools scored on

average 2.39 and control schools scored on average 2.20.

Giving feedback seemed to be very useful for the teachers. If teachers did not show skills

the learning packages were implying (for instance: when a teacher was asking questions, but did

not do it on a personal but on a general way) feedback could be given to these teachers. This way

many teachers showed progress in their teaching capabilities. The qualitative report showed that

many teachers were able to make supportive materials by themselves and could bring more

variation in their way of teaching. Many problems showed up with asking questions to the

children. It was difficult for many teachers to ask questions not in general and it was even more

difficult to ask not only knowledge questions, but also open questions, which stimulate a higher

level of thinking. The quantitative report showed that almost all teachers of Gugus Krembung

showed improvement in the five project criteria. In Gugus Sidoarjo not as many teachers as

Gugus Krembung showed improvement. Gugus Krian had only a few teachers who showed

progress in their way of teaching, concerning the project criteria.

4.8 The Primary School Atmosphere (PSA)

Table 3.1 shows 34 schools, divided into 19 experiment and 15 control schools. PSA was

completed by 230 teachers: 124 of experiment schools, and 106 of control schools. Differences

on information of the teachers between experiment and control schools were not significant.

Average age of the teachers was 44 years old. In experiment schools 28% of the teachers was

male, in control schools this is 34%. The average order of promotion rank between experiment

and control schools was almost the same. The experiment school teachers had in average a little

bit less experience in teaching than those in the control schools (12.39 years vs. 12.77 years).

27

In PSA, missing values were replaced by the mean. The scale consists of six components:

formalization, social trust, innovativeness, achievement orientation, pupil supportiveness, and

work pressure. Formalization means if the teacher is working on a formal way, obeys the rules

and acts according to formalizations of government and school management. A high score means

the teacher acts in a formal way. A high score on Social Trust means a teacher trusts the people

in his work environment. Innovativeness tells if the teacher is allowed by his surroundings to be

innovative. A high score means the teacher is free to innovate. When a teacher is motivated and

tried to get the best out of his pupils, he would get a high score on Achievement Orientation.

When the children helped their teacher a lot, there would be a high score on Pupil

Supportiveness. A high score on Work Pressure showed that the teacher experiences the job as a

burden and feels stressful because of his job. Minimum score on all factors is one (1.00),

maximum score on all factors is four (4.00). All differences between experiment and control

schools on the six factors were significant, except for the factor Work Pressure.

Teachers of the experiment schools scored higher on Formalization, Social Trust,

Innovativeness and Pupil Supportiveness. These differences all were significant. Differences

between gugus on these factors also were significant. Gugus Krian scores highest on all these

factors, in the experiment schools Gugus Krembung scored on all these factors lowest, in the

control schools Gugus Sidoarjo always scores lowest. Teachers did not feel very stressful in their

job.

Table 4.3 Scores on PSA components Formalization Social

Trust Innovativeness Achievement

Orientation Pupil Supportiveness

Work Pressure

Experiment Schools

1.89 2.09 2.27 2.45 1.81 1.63

Control Schools

1.74 1.91 2.15 2.45 1.63 1.57

Total

1.82 * 2.01 * 2.21 * 2.45 * 1.73 * 1.60

* Differences between experiment and control schools are significant on a .05-level 4.9 The opinion of teachers and principals

The opinion questionnaire for teachers and principals contains three parts: closed

questions for the teachers and principals of experiment schools, closed questions for all teachers

28

and principals and open questions for all teachers. The first part was filled in by 54 teachers and

principals, the second part by 81. Most of the teachers also filled in the third part.

Teachers and principals were especially satisfied by the contents of the learning

packages. The packages were of good quality, they, but also the children enjoyed working with

the learning packages, they were motivated to work with the learning packages. Although the

positive reactions of the teachers and principals, 39 still said the children learned better in the old

way of teaching. Most of the teachers and principals would like to use the learning packages on

more subjects than only IPS. The teachers and principals were also enthusiastic about the

contacts they have with the SSIP-team: the training they received learned them how to work with

the learning packages, SSIP-team motivated most of the teachers, there was enough contact with

the SSIP-team, enough results were shown to the teachers and principals and these results were

understandable.

Most teachers and principals were eager to continue, if there would be a new project.

Three teachers or principals answer “Little not agree” if they would like to continue. These

teachers mentioned this to the SSIP-team and for a possible next project some would like

continue as control school. The control schools were very positive about the project: they would

like to join if the programme continuation still existed. All control schools received on their own

request the learning packages after the implementation phase of the project was finished.

The qualitative questions gave more insight into what the teachers and principals

knowledge on learning packages were obsolence. Many teachers noticed they did not have the

time for making audiovisual aids themselves. The audiovisual aids were not complete in order to

stimulate the creativity of the teachers. Mostly, the teachers themselves solved these problems.

Many teachers and principals like most the programme because it was a motivation for

the pupils and they would learn better by that. The systematic way of teaching was also popular.

Many teachers and principals thought the learning packages should be given in more subjects

and on more schools. Many teachers and principals were also looking for assistance, either in

making the audiovisual aids or in continue working with the learning packages even after the

programme finished.

On the final question if the schools would like to join a possible new further programme,

and especially why, most teachers and principals let know that they wanted to continue. The

main reasons were that the teachers felt being supported in their teaching. Working with the

29

learning packages enriched them and their pupil’s experience. Main reason for not joining in a

continuation was the time-consuming, which it took to heavy work with the learning packages.

30

5. Findings and Discussion 5.1 Findings

This study was carried out in order to explain whether after controlling for the pupil,

class, and school factors did the programme improve the quality of schools? In detail, the

answers to the following research questions would provide the explanation.

Research Question 1: what were the meaningful variables at pupil, class, and school levels that

differentiate the children progress in learning the social studies?

Table 5.1 Summary of Fixed Variables at Grade 3 and 4 Grade 3 Grade 4

Fixed Variables Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Total Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Total

Prior score Intelligence Gender Age Father education Mother education Foccupation1 Foccupation2 Moccupation1 Moccupation2 Moccupation3 Academic attitudes Self-concept Democratic attitudes Locus of control Class instruction Class management Class climate Formalisation Affiliation Innovation Achievement orientation Pupil support Work pressure Experiment

+ -

+

+ + -

+

+

+ -

+ -

+

+

+

+ -

+ - + +

+

+

+ -

+ - + +

+

+

+ +

+

+ - +

+ +

+ + - +

+ +

+

+

+ + - +

+ +

+ -

+

+ + - +

+ +

+

+ +

Note: All signs (+ or - direction) are significant with p<0.05. Dummy variables:

Gender (0=female pupil, 1=male pupil) Foccupation = Father occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual) Moccupation = Mother occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual, 3=non-earning) Experiment (0=control schools, 1=experimental schools) * Detail, see Appendices

31

In order to find factors affected the children learning improvement, Table 5.1 presents a

summary of the findings (detail, see Appendices) as follows:

• The ability (intelligence) of individual child was consistently appear to be a good

baseline for estimating the progress made by a child, class, and school.

• Some predictors at the pupil level were not consistently significant but gave the clues and

direction to be considered. They were pupil gender (better for girls), father occupation

(negative for manual works), mother occupation (positive for better jobs), father’s

education (positive), reward for better achievement (negative), attitude (positive), self-

concept (negative), democratic attitude (positive), locus of control (positive).

• Information about the classroom process from the teacher point of view was slight

different. Most of the teacher experienced lack of time, teaching aids and finance. But

they could solve the problems by sharing and discussion with their colleagues, principal,

or SSIP team. Some of them create their own teaching aids. Teachers like the programme

because could motivate the children to learn and easily to understand. As clearly stated in

their opinion that SSIP helped them to make teaching more systematic.

• For the process inside the classroom, based on the observation schedule, the instructional

activities tended to be perceived negatively, the managerial aspects could be positive and

negative as well, and the class climate was positive. It might be that the instructional

aspects covered by the Virgilio scales were not so well connected with what have been

implemented in educational practice. And also we were not able to establish consistent

behaviour through the implementation.

• It was implicitly expressed that the relationship between headteacher and the class-

teachers were good. But statement related to school process did not appear and looked no

contribution to the classroom improvement. The school process were explained in more

detailed related to the school atmosphere.

• In terms of the school atmosphere, none of the six developed dimensions showed

consistent results across the modules and grades. Although they were not significant but

at least the dimensions indicated certain direction in explaining the attainments as

response variables. The dimensions were formalisation (negative and positive), social

cohesiveness (positive), innovativeness (positive and negative), achievement orientation

32

(positive), pupil support (negative), work stress (positive and negative). These were not

easy to explain well except to be followed by separate study.

Research Question 2: Did the experimental schools (those that implement the programme)

achieve success and how big the variation accounted for the school or class?

Table 5.2 Raw effects on Social Studies Outcomes

Variance Component (%) Taught Unit Variance Pupil Class/School

N

Grade 3: Home environment School environment Village map

• Total Grade 4:

. Indonesian map

. Majapahit Kingdom

. Provinces in Indonesia • Total

6.746 6.976 77.26 130.9

9.981 6.397 90.29

189.34

76.5 83.7 70.6 72.9

60.1 72.7 53.8 56.9

23.5 16.3 29.4 27.1

39.9 27.3 46.2 43.1

781 781 781 781

766 766 766 766

* Detail, see Appendices

Table 5.3 Fractions of variance components explained by background and composition Variance Component (% for class/school) Taught Unit

Pupil Class School Contribution Grade 3:

1. Home environment 2. School environment 3. Village map • Total

17.7 14.4 26.2 23.0

15.9 13.6 21.2 19.7

14.9 13.3 19.8 17.7

25.9 21.1 36.8 16.3

Pupil Pupil& Prior score

Class School Contribution

Grade 4: 1. Indonesian map 2. Majapahit Kingdom 3. Provinces in Indonesia • Total

41.8 25.8 48.6 45.2

42.2 26.8 51.5 47.8

39.2 27.4 49.8 46.2

25.5 20.3 25.9 24.5

32.7 27.8 50.3 48.2

* Detail, see Appendices

33

• It was found, in Table 5.2, that the SSIP has made a difference comparing to the non-

participating schools. The most striking findings were that the attainments of children at

experimental schools were higher than those at the control schools.

• Relating to variances at the pupil level, before entering the explanatory variables,

illustrated in Table 5.3, the range between 70.6 % to 83.7% for Grade 3 and 53.8% to

72.7% for Grade 4 attainments. In other words it could be said that for class/school level

the variances ranged between 16.3 to 29.4 % for Grade 3 and 27.3 to 46.2% for Grade 4.

• Taught units in Grade 3, see Table 5.3, the variation at class level ranged between 13.6-

21.2% for Grade 3 and at the school level was between 13.3 to 19.8%. The overall

contribution of taught units were between 16.3 to 36.8%.

• Taught units in Grade 4, see Table 5.3, the variation at class level ranged between 27.4 to

49.8% and at the school level bet ween 20.3 to 25.9%. The prior knowledge could

explain between 26.8 to 51.5% whereas the contribution of taught components ranged

between 27.8 to 50.3%

5.2 Discussion

Results of the present study provides contribution to the dicussion about the equity of

children learning progress. Related to the attainment at the time, gender differences appeared

consistently across Grade 3 to be significant. The findings were in line with many studies in

primary level that girls performed better than boys. Parker (1997: 504) study on engendering

school children in Bali (another part of Indonesia) may illustrate the acceptable reason for the

findings. She explains that at school the typical behaviours are as follows: “… in classrooms,

girls are quiet and well-behaved at the front and boys are noisier and more active at the back …”

And the behaviours outside the schools:

… girls are always at home and boys are out ‘getting experience’, is not only in Bali but also in most part of Indonesia. School-age girls are nearly always at home in out-of-school time, it is expected that they will help with homework. However, boys roam the village, fishing, hunting, playing games, having adventures in all-boy bands (Parker, 1997: 509).

As a result of the habits, besides the teacher has a good impression about the girls that

may affect into good grades, girls have more time for studying at home than boys that influence

their cognitive achievement. Ardhana (1980) even ended up to the same conclusion with

34

different strategies. He found that although boys have higher scores than girls in formal thinking,

girls attained better due to their obedience, attitudes, honesty, and diligence in doing the school

works at home and school.

Culturally, Indonesian parents play important roles for their children educational

outcomes. Having high scores in academic achievement is an important business for most urban

parents and schools. Parents are struggling hard to raise the attainment level of the child by

hiring other people to teach child outside the school hours. School also were striving to raise the

pupil achievement in order to have better name and prestige that may affect enrolment of new

intake and school income in the subsequent years. Therefore children of better educational and

occupation parents outperformed those of other categories of parents.

Age does not appear to be problematic equity even many studies in the past found serious

problems Actually this Indonesin case is much related to the pupil promotion policies determined

by the government. The retention at primary schools does not make a child improve even worsen

the attainment and progress. For small children, retention could affect their attitudes, motivation,

increasing the boredom, and also be blamed by the family that could affect them to feel being

rejected.

Results of the Virgilio-instrument showed that teachers in experiment schools had a

better class management and a better class climate. There were no significant differences

between experiment and control schools concerning the Instruction by the teachers. This was

remarkable, because a better instruction by the teachers was a direct object of the SSIP.

Concerning the programme criteria the end situation was above average and the teachers of the

experiment schools had shown improvement. Experiment schools performed better than control

schools on factors at school level. Experiment schools also have a higher Formalization, Social

Trust, Innovativeness and Pupil Supportiveness. The analysis showed that the factors Social

Trust, Innovativeness and Achievement Orientation had positive influence on the results of the

pupils. The multilevel analysis showed that factors at class and school level had a small positive

influence on the results of the pupils.

Related to findings in class/school level, it would be of use to see the “public good test”

developed internationally for policy in education, based on work of Swanson and King (1997).

This test comprises six basic values viz. access, equity, choice, growth, efficiency, and harmony.

The access determines that the policy should ensure that all students have the opportunity to gain

35

an education that is world-class. The equity needs the policy should provide assurance that

students with similar needs will be treated in the same manner in the course of their education.

With choice, it means that policy should reflect the rights of parents and students to chools a

school that meets their needs and aspirations. For growth, the strategies should be in place to

ensure that resources are adequate to the task. Efficiency means that scarce resources should be

allocated wisely to optimize outcomes. For harmony, the policy should be developed to ensure

there is no fragmentation of commitment and effort in support of education.

All the six values could guarantee the classroom and school atmosphere as found in this study.

From empty model, the proportion of class/school variance was between 16.3 and 46.2%.

The findings are in line with those found of the effect size of the subject. For primary schools in

developed schools the total variances attributable to schools between 10.7 to 21.5 (Sammons,

Smess, Thomas, Robertson, McCall & Mortimore, 1997). Researchers using multilevel analysis

in developing countries have found that the school variances tend to be considerably higher

although many of the studies suffered from limitations in designing. For this Indonesian study

the remarkable variance results are likely to reflect conditions in developing countries.

After controlling for measures of the personal and family background of pupils and prior

attainment, the proportions attributed to school and class factors were between 16.3 to 50.3%.

Again the proportions appear to be different from those in developed countries i.e 12-18%

(Creemers, 1994b; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). It should be noted in interpreting this study’s

findings that the percentages have a role in setting the boundaries for the potential impact of

factors in different levels only (Creemers & Reezigt, 1996). To discover more about the

explanatory factors in each level, further analyses are needed.

Gugus Krembung as a rural cluster appear to be the best in many figures. The children

come from lower socio-economic family with low parental education but could make a high

progress. This is the preeminence of the programme. The evidence proves that a thorough

developed school-based programme could make the rural schools better. Perhaps the statement

from Beeby (1979), Parker (1997), Surakhmad (1999) that heavy centralized education policies

could not guarantee a substantial quality improvement. The present study has already started

with a small scale programme. However, the study at least has successfully developed and then

tested by a set of performance indicators that would be useful to subsequent educational policy

and action development.

36

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

Summing up the findings, the drawn conclusions from the analyses as presented in the

previous pages, were:

• The SSIP has made a difference comparing to the non-project schools. The most striking

findings were that the attainments of children at experimental schools were higher than

those at the control schools. The same phenomena appeared also in the classroom and

school processes.

• The ability (intelligence) of individual child was consistently appear to be a good

baseline for estimating the progress made by a child, class, and school.

• Some predictors at the pupil level were not consistently significant but gave the clues and

direction to be considered. They were pupil gender (better for girls), father occupation

(negative for manual works), mother occupation (positive for better jobs), father’s

education (positive), reward for better achievement (negative), attitude (positive), self-

concept (negative), democratic attitude (positive), locus of control (positive).

• Information about the classroom process from the teacher point of view was slight

different. Most of the teacher experienced lack of time, teaching aids and finance. But

they could solve the problems by sharing and discussion with their colleagues, principal,

or SSIP team. Some of them create their own teaching aids. Teachers like the programme

because could motivate the children to learn and easily to understand. As clearly stated in

their opinion that SSIP helped them to make teaching more systematic.

• For the process inside the classroom, based on the observation schedule, the instructional

activities tended to be perceived negatively, the managerial aspects could be positive and

negative as well, and the class climate was positive. It might be that the instructional

aspects covered by the Virgilio scales were not so well connected with what have been

implemented in educational practice. And also we were not able to establish consistent

behaviour through the implementation.

• It was implicitly expressed that the the relatioship between headteacher and the class-

teachers were good. But statement related to school process did not appear and looked no

37

contribution to the classroom improvement. The school process were explained in more

detailed related to the school atmosphere.

• In terms of the school atmosphere, none of the six developed dimensions showed

consistent results across the modules and grades. Although they were not significant but

at least the dimensions indicated certain direction in explaining the attainments as

response variables. The dimensions were formalisation (negative and positive), social

cohesiveness (positive), innovativeness (positive and negative), achievement orientation

(positive), pupil support (negative), work stress (positive and negative). These were not

easy to explain well except to be followed by separate study.

• Relating to explained variances at the pupil level, the range of accounted variance

between 9.6 % to 29.7% for Grade 3 and 17.7% to 40.3% for Grade 4 attainments.

• For class level the estimation for contribution ranged between 5-7.2% for Grade 3 and 9.6

to 29.4% for Grade 4.

• On the other upper hierarchy, school level, 9.4 to 14.1% for Grade 3 and 14.3 to 34.2%

for Grade 4 were accounted for school level. The findings seemed to make sense even the

evidence from the class conditions were lower than pupil and school levels because of the

number of variables included in that level. Even though, this could not be guaranteed in a

simple way because of separating analysis among the levels without controlling each

other. This caveat may lead to other sophisticated analysis in the future. However, the

results had given some hints about the school improvement and the tendency to be

considered.

6.2 Recommendations

SSIP was a pilot programme that xperiences in the programme and the Evaluation result

lead to the prime recommendation for continuation and future research.

• There was implementation on only one subject, the social studies. On all other subjects

the experiment school teachers continued in using the “old way of teaching”. The pupils

continued in their “old habits”. A programme like the SSIP should implement on more

than one subject. Teachers would show better teaching strategies. There would be more

structure in the lessons of the teachers. Pupils would understand better and show better

results in their work.

38

• Teachers motivation and ability were varied. This made the process of developing the

learning package has to undergo some obstacles, such as lack of teachers’ creativity in

developing the module of the learning package. When making module, teachers only

reproduce from the example of the module given by SSIP team. Therefore the teaching

methods in the packages seemed similar. Enhancing teacher creativity is important for

such kind of programme.

• The intervention in this SSIP was manageable well and more fruitful in the subdistrict

like Krembung with rural and agricultural background. Schools there were hungry of

innovation and eager to participate. Whereas for the areas of urban, semi-urban and

industrial background some thorough considerations and carefully adjustment to their

conditions might make them more workable. All the three phases, especially

development and implementation were important to introduce, direct, and motivate all the

key actors in fulfilling the expected process of educational improvement.

• For schools, controlling for baseline effects was not common yet in some developing

countries (Riddell, 1997) including Indonesia. The prior ability and conditions were not

perceived appropriately. This happened locally during the process of the programme. The

tendency to compete at least among groups has led the schools to feeling rather inferior

especially in terms of socio-economic-status although it was not the point because such

conditions would be taken into account before making the further assessment. The next

consequence, of course, was the misinterpreted the results if not followed by some

additional explanation. This study demonstrated such kind of baseline to be of use for

future studies.

39

References Aitkin, M., & Longford, N. (1986). Statistical modelling issues in school effectiveness studies.

The journal of the royal statistical society series A (general), 149(Part 1), 1-43. Beeby, C.E., 1979; Assessment of Indonesian Education: A Guide in Planning. Wellington:

NZCER in association with Oxford University Press. Creemers, B.P.M. (1994a). The Effective Classroom. London: Cassell Creemers, B.P.M. (1994b). Effective instruction: an empirical basis for a theory of educational

effectiveness. In: Reynolds, D., B.P.M. Creemers, P.S. Nesselrodt, E.C. Shaffer, S. Stringfield & C. Teddlie (eds.); Advances in school effectiveness research and practice. Oxford: Pergamon.

Creemers, B.P.M. (1997). Effective Schools and Effective Teachers: An International Perspective. Coventry: Centre for Research in Elementary and Primary Education University of Warwick, UK.

Creemers, B.P.M. (2000). Report of a one-day discussion by Indonesian and Dutch experts: Basic Education in Indonesia. Reflexie, 3(2), 13-19.

Creemers, B.P.M. & Reezigt, G.J. (1996). School level conditions affecting the effectiveness of instruction. In: School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7 (3), 197-228.

Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical model. London: Edward Arnold. Gray, J., Reynolds, D., Fitz-Gibbon, C., & Jesson, D. (Eds.) (1996). Merging traditions: the

future of research on school effectiveness and school improvement. London: Cassell. Gray, J., & Wilcox, B. (1995). Good School, Bad School: evaluating performance and schools

encouraging improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hopkins, D. (1990). The International School Improvement Project (ISIP) and effective

schooling: Towards a synthesis. School Organisation 8 (3), 129-94. Kaluge, L. (1999). Some Factors Related to Educational Attainment in Indonesian Primary

Schools. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London. Ministry of Education and Culture (1998). Primary Education Quality Improvement Project

(PEQIP). Jakarta: Ministry of Education and Culture. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988) School matters: the junior

years. Wells: Open Books. Parker, L. (1997). Engendering school children in Bali. Journal of the Royal Anthropological

Institute, 3(3), 497-516. Paterson, L. (1991). An introduction to multilevel modelling. In Raudenbush, S.W. & Willms,

J.D. (Eds.) Schools, classrooms, and pupils: international studies of schooling from a multilevel perspective. London: Academic Press.

Rentoul, A.J. & Fraser, B.J. (1983). Development of a School-level Environment Questionnaire. The Journal of Educational Administration, XXI (1), 21-39.

Riddell, A.R. (1997). Assessing designs for school effectiveness research and school improvement in developing countries. Comparative education review, 41(2), 178-204.

Rosenshine, B. (1987). Direct Instruction. In: M.J. Dunkin (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education, pp. 143-149. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Sammons, P., Smess, R., Thomas, S., Robertson, P., McCall, J., & Mortimore, P. (1997). The impact of background factors on pupil attainment, progress and attitudes in Scottish schools. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of York, 11-14 September.

40

Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling; research, theory and practice. London: Cassell. Scheerens, J. & Bosker, R.J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. London:

Elsevier Science Ltd. Setijadi, Moegiadi, Wiradinata, R. & Elley, W.B. (1978). Grade VI survey of student

achievement. Jakarta: Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Slavin, R.E. (1996). Education for All. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger. Snijders, T.A.B., & Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and

advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage. Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: linking school effectiveness and school

improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press. Supriyoko, K. (2002). Menyarjanakan Guru Sekolah Dasar (Mastering the primary school

teachers). Kompas, 10 Oktober 2002. Suparno, P. (2002). Guru dan Reformasi Pendidikan (Teachers and the educational reformation) ,

Kompas, 22 Agustus 2002. Surakhmad, W. (1999). Education in Indonesia: Will it Survive the Test. Paper for a one-day

discussion in Jakarta, 24 April Suryadi, A. (1993). Improving the Educational Quality of Primary Schools: Assessment of

School Quality and Students Achievement in Indonesian Primary Schools. Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) ED 356545.

Teddlie, C., Virgilio, I., & Oescher, J. (1990). Development and validation of the Virgilio Teacher Behavior Instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 421-30.

Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (2000). The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research. London & New York: Falmer Press.

Thomas, R.M. (1992). Indonesia. In Thomas, R.M. (ed.); Education’s Role in National Development Plans: Ten Country Cases. New York: Praeger.

Tangyong, A.F., Wahyudi, Gardner, R. & Hawes, H. (1989). Quality through Support for Teachers: A Case Study from Indonesia. Jakarta: Published jointly by Office of Educational and Cultural Research and Development, Ministry of Education and Culture, Indonesia and Department of International and Comparative Education, University of London.

Unicef (2000). Challenges for a New Generation: The Situation of Children and Women in Indonesia. Government of Indonesia & Unicef.

World Bank (1998). Education in Indonesia: from crisis to recovery. Washington, D.C: Education Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Regional Office.

Woodhouse, G., Rasbash, J., Goldstein, H., & Yang, M. (1996). "Introduction to multilevel modelling." In Woodhouse, G. (Ed.) Multilevel modelling applications. London: Multilevel Models Project, Institute of Education, University of London.

41

APPENDICES

42

Grade 3: Model 0: the empty model, as a start without any explanatory variable Model 1: with pupil background variables only Model 2: with class variables Model 3: with school variables Table 1. Grade 3 Content-Related 1

Modelling Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Fixed part: Intercept Intelligence Gender Age Father education Mother education Foccupation1 Foccupation2 Moccupation1 Moccupation2 Moccupation3 Academic attitudes Self-concept Democratic attitudes Locus of control Class instruction Class management Class climate Formalisation Affiliation Innovation Achievement orientation Pupil support Work pressure Experiment

5.99 (0.23)

0.43 (1.16) 0.11 (0.012)* -0.39 (0.15)* 0.013 (0.009) 0.16 (0.05)* -0.086 (0.053) -0.038 (0.23) 0.09 (0.18) 0.4 (0.23) 0.79 (0.36)* 0.68 (0.21)* 0.13 (0.2) -0.83 (0.22)* 0.58 (0.3) 1.67 (0.45)*

2.6 (0.58) 0.11 (0.01)* -0.37 (0.15)* 0.1 (0.03)* 0.37 (0.23) 0.69 (0.34) 0.64 (0.21)* -0.64 (0.18)* 1.5 (0.44)* 0.32 (0.21) 0.15 (0.22) -0.26 (0.23)

2.1 (0.61) 0.11 (0.01)* -0.37 (0.15)* 0.11 (0.035)* 0.39 (0.23) 0.7 (0.34)* 0.63 (0.21)* -0.61 (0.18)* 1.46 (0.44)* 0.81 (0.63) -0.59 (0.43) -0.03 (0.49) 0.063 (0.35) -0.21 (0.53) -0.033 (0.4) 0.78 (0.38) *

Random part: School/Class σ2 Pupil σ2 Total σ2

1.588 (0.45) 5.158 (0.26) 6.746

0.9057 (0.27) 4.222 (0.21) 5.1277

0.8078 (0.25) 4.258 (0.21) 5.0658

0.7451 (0.23) 4.253 (0.21) 4.9981

% school σ2 % σ2 accounted for

23.5 -

17.7 24.0

15.9 24.9

14.9 25.9

-2(log-likehood) 3854.19 3589.26 3592.89 3589.8 Note: * p<0.05, standard error in brackets. Pupil gender (0=female pupil, 1=male pupil) Father occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual) Mother occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual, 3=non-earning) Experiment (0=control schools, 1=experimental schools)

43

Table 2. Grade 3 Content-Related 2

Modelling Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Fixed part: Intercept Intelligence Gender Age Father education Mother education Foccupation1 Foccupation2 Moccupation1 Moccupation2 Moccupation3 Academic attitudes Self-concept Democratic attitudes Locus of control Class instruction Class management Class climate Formalisation Affiliation Innovation Achievement orientation Pupil support Work pressure Experiment

7.193 (0.2)

3.62 (1.23) 0.11 (0.01)* -0.45 (0.16)* 0.003 (0.009) 0.15 (0.05)* -0.012 (0.056) -0.12 (0.25) -0.13 (0.19) 0.085 (0.24) 0.45 (0.38) 0.37 (0.23) 0.19 (0.22) -0.93 (0.23)* 0.059 (0.32) 1.95 (0.47)*

4.08 (0.59) 0.11 (0.1)* -0.44 (0.16)* 0.15 (0.036)* -0.84 (0.19)* 1.94 (0.47)* 0.0065 (0.2) 0.22 (0.21) -0.066 (0.22)

3.76 (0.63) 0.11 (0.01)* -0.43 (0.16)* 0.15 (0.03)* -0.82 (0.19)* 1.92 (0.47)* 0.12 (0.6)* -0.07 (0.43) -0.26 (0.49) -0.087 (0.35) 0.19 (0.53) -0.14 (0.4) 0.57 (0.28)*

Random part: School/Class σ2 Pupil σ2 Total σ2

1.136 (0.34) 5.84 (0.29) 6.976

0.8017 (0.25) 4.757 (0.24) 5.5587

0.7536 (0.24) 4.788 (0.24) 5.5416

0.7169 (0.23) 4.784 (0.24) 5.5009

% school σ2 % σ2 accounted for

16.3 -

14.4 20.3

13.6 20.6

13.03 21.1

-2(log-likehood) 3681.19 3684.7 3682.76 Note: * p<0.05, standard error in brackets. Pupil gender (0=female pupil, 1=male pupil) Father occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual) Mother occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual, 3=non-earning) Experiment (0=control schools, 1=experimental schools)

44

Table 3. Grade 3 Content-Related 3

Modelling Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Fixed part: Intercept Intelligence Gender Age Father education Mother education Foccupation1 Foccupation2 Moccupation1 Moccupation2 Moccupation3 Academic attitudes Self-concept Democratic attitudes Locus of control Class instruction Class management Class climate Formalisation Affiliation Innovation Achievement orientation Pupil support Work pressure Experiment

22.29 (0.87)

3.81 (3.58) 0.43 (0.036)* -1.54 (0.45)* 0.0077 (0.029) 0.53 (0.15)* -0.046 (0.16) -0.33 (0.72) 0.24 (0.54) 0.26 (0.7) 1.37 (1.1) 0.68 (0.65) 0.79 (0.64) -3.49 (0.67)* 2.61 (0.92)* 7.83 (1.36)*

4.9 (2.1) 0.44 (0.035)* -1.55 (0.45)* 0.55 (0.1)* -3.11 (0.58)* 2.94 (0.91)* 7.72 (1.4)* -0.49 (0.72) 2.23 (0.76)* 0.13 (0.79)

3.85 (2.2) 0.44 (0.04)* -1.56 (0.45)* 0.55 (0.1)* -3.06 (0.58)* 2.98 (0.91)* 7.68 (1.36)* 2.13 (0.8)* 1.22 (2.3) -0.48 (1.5) 0.024 (1.74) -0.057 (1.2) -0.11 (1.93) -0.74 (1.43) 2.93 (1.36)*

Random part: School/Class σ2 Pupil σ2 Total σ2

22.7 (6.1) 54.56 (2.7) 77.26

13.83 (3.8) 38.97 (1.9) 52.8

10.52 (3.01) 39.2 (1.9) 49.72

9.691 (2.8) 39.17 (1.97) 48.861

% school σ2 % σ2 accounted for

29.4 -

26.2 31.7

21.2 35.6

19.8 36.8

-2(log-likehood) 5719.56 5437.23 5433.82 5431.03 Note: * p<0.05, standard error in brackets. Pupil gender (0=female pupil, 1=male pupil) Father occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual) Mother occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual, 3=non-earning) Experiment (0=control schools, 1=experimental schools)

45

Grade 4: Model 0: the empty model, as a start without any explanatory variable Model 1: with pupil background variables only Model 2; pupil background + prior attainment Model 3: with class variables Model 4: with school variables Table 4. Grade 4 Content-Related 1

Modelling Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Fixed part: Intercept Prior score Intelligence Gender Age Father education Mother education Foccupation1 Foccupation2 Moccupation1 Moccupation2 Moccupation3 Academic attitudes Self-concept Democratic attitudes Locus of control Class instruction Class management Class climate Formalisation Affiliation Innovation Achievement orient. Pupil support Work pressure Experiment

4.26 (0.35)

-1.67 (1.53) 0.086 (0.013)* -0.18 (0.17) 0.01 (0.01) 0.12 (0.05)* 0.016 (0.06) -0.37 (0.28) 0.22 (0.21) -0.46 (0.25) -0.23 (0.41) -0.07 (0.23) 6.2 (0.23) 0.28 (0.25) 6.3 (0.36) 1.5 (0.58)*

-4.91 (1.58) 0.59 (0.09)* 0.06 (0.01)* 0.081 (0.17) 0.013 (0.01) 0.11 (0.052)* -0.012 (0.056) -0.39 (0.27) 0.13 (0.2) -0.48 (0.25) -0.35 (0.4) -0.18 (0.22) 0.052 (0.22) 0.35 (0.24) 0.24 (0.35) 1.32 (0.56)*

-2.52 (0.77) 0.6 (0.09)* 0.063 (0.01)* 0.09 (0.04)* 1.01 (0.55)* –0.34 (0.23) -0.17 (0.27) -0.22 (0.22)

-3.43 (0.76) 0.63 (0.09)* 0.06 (0.01)* 0.098(0.04)* 0.97 (0.54)* -1.59 (0.67)* 2.48 (0.47)* 0.73 (0.52) 0.006 (0.4) -0.16 (0.58) -1.5 (0.44)* 1.24 (0.51)*

Random part: School/Class σ2 Pupil σ2 Total σ2

3.984 (1.04) 5.997 (0.3) 9.981

3.887 (1.01) 5.411 (0.27) 9.298

3.757 (0.1) 5.156 (0.26) 8.913

3.366 (0.88) 5.219 (0.26) 8.585

1.713 (0.47) 5.007 (0.25) 6.72

% school σ2 % σ2 accounted for

39.9 -

41.8 6.8

42.2 10.7

39.2 14.0

25.5 32.7

-2(log-likehood) 60.074 3789.8 3750.85 3756.85 3703.48 Note: * p<0.05, standard error in brackets. Pupil gender (0=female pupil, 1=male pupil) Father occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual) Mother occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual, 3=non-earning) Experiment (0=control schools, 1=experimental schools)

46

Table 5. Grade 4 Content-Related 2

Modelling Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Fixed part: Intercept Prior score Intelligence Gender Age Father education Mother education Foccupation1 Foccupation2 Moccupation1 Moccupation2 Moccupation3 Academic attitudes Self-concept Democratic attitudes Locus of control Class instruction Class management Class climate Formalisation Affiliation Innovation Achievement orient. Pupil support Work pressure Experiment

4.56 (0.24)

-0.45 (1.3) 0.076 (0.01)* -0.35 (0.18) -0.0002 (0.09) 0.017 (0.047) 0.094 (0.05) -0.44 (0.24) 0.27 (0.18) 0.045 (0.22) 0.76 (0.35)* 0.34 (0.2) -0.023 (0.2) -0.23 (0.21) 0.99 (0.3)* 1.58 (0.5)*

-4.39 (1.3) 0.71 (0.078)* 0.049 (0.01)* -0.23 (0.14) 0.004 (0.008) 0.002 (0.04) 0.06 (0.05) -0.47 (0.23)* 0.18 (0.17) 0.02 (0.21) 0.61 (0.33) 0.21 (0.19) -0.08 (0.19) -0.16 (0.2) 1.02 (0.29)* 1.43 (0.47)*

-4.55 (0.8) 0.77 (0.076)* 0.05 (0.01)* -0.45 (0.22)* 0.34 (0.16)* 0.98 (0.28)* 1.47 (0.46)* 0.061 (0.17) -0.02 (0.21) -0.19 (0.16)

-4.57 (0.79) 0.76 (0.076)* 0.05 (0.011)* -0.45 (0.22)* 0.34 (0.16)* 0.98 (0.28)* 1.5 (0.46)* 0.44 (0.6) 0.45 (0.4) 0.86 (0.42)* -0.14 (0.33) 0.06 (0.46) -0.58 (0.35) 1.05 (0.39)*

Random part: School/Class σ2 Pupil σ2 Total σ2

1.747 (0.48) 4.65 (0.23) 6.397

1.401 (0.39) 4.019 (0.2) 5.42

1.335 (0.37) 3.638 (0.18) 4.973

1.393 (0.38) 3.686 (0.19) 5.079

0.9403 (0.27) 3.681 (0.19) 4.6213

% school σ2 % σ2 accounted for

27.3 -

25.8 15.3

26.8 22.3

27.4 20.6

20.3 27.8

-2(log-likehood) 3645.91 3524.69 3445.01 3456.44 3443.97 Note: * p<0.05, standard error in brackets. Pupil gender (0=female pupil, 1=male pupil) Father occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual) Mother occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual, 3=non-earning) Experiment (0=control schools, 1=experimental schools)

47

Table 6. Grade 4 Content-Related 3

Modelling Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Fixed part: Intercept Prior score Intelligence Gender Age Father education Mother education Foccupation1 Foccupation2 Moccupation1 Moccupation2 Moccupation3 Academic attitudes Self-concept Democratic attitudes Locus of control Class instruction Class management Class climate Formalisation Affiliation Innovation Achievement orient. Pupil support Work pressure Experiment

28.34 (1.6)

-0.38 (6.14) 0.48 (0.05)* -1.6 (0.67)* -0.016 (0.04) 0.36 (0.22) 0.31 (0.23) -1.98 (1.11) 1.87 (0.83)* -1.18 (1.01) 1.54 (1.63) 0.39 (0.91) 0.93 (0.92) -0.31 (0.98) 2.85 (1.4)* 11.46 (2.3)*

-21.9 (6.1) 3.9 (0.36)* 0.32 (0.05)* -0.95 (0.63) 0.003(0.037) 0.27 (0.2) 0.13 (0.21) -2.16 (1.04)* 1.6 (0.77)* -1.31 (0.94) 0.73 (1.5) -0.32 (0.85) 0.61 (0.86) 0.13 (0.92) 3.14 (1.32)* 10.49 (2.1)*

-22.34 (3.8) 4.22 (0.35)* 0.34 (0.05)* -2.12 (1.04)* 2.04 (0.73)* 3.6 (1.3)* 10.2 (2.12)* -0.4 (0.93) 0.35 (1.1) -1.64 (0.88)

-29.51 (3.7) 4.3 (0.34)* 0.34 (0.05)* -2.1 (1.02)* 2.09 (0.72)* 3.98 (1.3)* 9.98 (2.08)* -1.29 (2.55) 6.5 (1.8)* -2.43 (1.98) 2.48 (1.58) -1.7 (2.2) -3.15 (1.69)* 11.26 (1.93)*

Random part: School/Class σ2 Pupil σ2 Total σ2

81.64 (21.04) 107.7 (5.45) 189.34

70.89 (18.3) 85.92 (4.3) 156.81

68.28 (17.3) 74.46 (3.77) 142.74

64.77 (16.6) 75.36 (3.8) 140.13

24.01 (6.69) 74.15 (3.75) 98.16

% school σ2 % σ2 accounted for

43.1 -

45.2 17.2

47.8 24.6

46.2 26.0

24.5 48.2

-2(log-likehood) 6232.24 6050.34 5936.95 5944.66 5901.13 Note: * p<0.05, standard error in brackets. Pupil gender (0=female pupil, 1=male pupil) Father occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual) Mother occupation (0=clerical & professional, 1=unskilled manual, 2= skilled manual, 3=non-earning) Experiment (0=control schools, 1=experimental schools).