The Evaluation of Community Participation in Basic Education
Management
Laurens Kaluge
1
1
Graduate Program of Social Studies Education, Universitas Kajuruhan.
Jalan S Supriadi 48, Malang. Indonesia
Keywords: Community Participation, Educational Management, Mainstreaming, Program Evaluation, Basic Education.
Abstract: Community participation as an important component of educational practices had been taken place in many
projects for Indonesian basic education. This study attempted to examine how well was the community
participation in innovation programs based on projects and educational levels since the beginning of the 21st
century. Data from seven provinces, consisted of 2415 teachers and 1785 parents were analyzed
descriptively. The findings revealed that good practices of such participation covered the intensity of
involvement, community needs, community satisfaction, communication systems, and partnership between
school and community. The participation degree of these components varied among the nine projects in two
level of the basic education. While changes kept on going in education, the components never fade away,
and the findings would be of benefit as lessons learnt for the future school improvement.
1 INTRODUCTION
School is in the middle of society and can be said to
have double functioning. First, is to preserve the
positive values that exist in the community, in order
to inherit the community values that take place
properly (Bundu, 2009). Secondly, it is as an
institution that can change the values and traditions
according to the progress and demands of life and
development (Epstein, 2009). Both functions seemed
contradictory, but actually are done in the same
time. Values that are in accordance with the needs of
development remain sustainably preserved, while
the unsuitable ones must be changed. Implementing
these functions of school become the foundation of
community expectations for their progress. To be
able to perform the functions of the school
community relationship, it is expected to be in
harmony (Dreikurs, 1970). Thus, the cooperation
and mutual help between school and community are
encouraged. In addition, education emerged shared
responsibilities between schools, government, and
societies.
There are ample evidences to confirm that good
practices take place everywhere. As is known, there
are sets of good practices that have been or are being
developed by various projects, including those
funded by donors at the Ministry of Education and
Culture. At the school level, the idea of community
participation in education development and
implementation can be forms of local wisdom and
excellence (ADB 2001, ADB 2004, World Bank,
2000; Sanders, 2001; Cohen-Vogel et al., 2010;
Tunison, 2013; Cuellar and Theriot, 2017).
Since the beginning of the XXI century there had
been at least nine basic education programs in
Indonesia. These nine programs were arguably the
mainstream innovation for a number of large and
small-scale projects. These programs were known by
their unique names (Muljoatmodjo, 2000, Anam,
2006): Science Education Quality Improvement
Project (SEQIP), Creating Learning Community for
Children (CLCC), Nusa Tenggara Timur Primary
Education Partnership (NTT-PEP), Basic Education
Project (BEP), Contextual Teaching and Learning
(CTL) program, Managing Basic Education (MBE),
Decentralized Basic Education Project (DBEP),
Study on Regional Education Development and
Improvement Program sponsored by JICA (REDIP-
JICA), and Study on Regional Education
Development and Improvement Program sponsored
by Indonesian Government (REDIP-G). All the
170
Kaluge, L.
The Evaluation of Community Participation in Basic Education Management.
In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities (ANCOSH 2018) - Revitalization of Local Wisdom in Global and Competitive Era, pages 170-176
ISBN: 978-989-758-343-8
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

programs alluded their success and best practices,
even though none could be proclaimed as the best.
The purpose of this article to evaluate how best the
community participation in separate program that
would be the exemplar for others.
2 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
With regard to community involvement, there were
three things needed to be emphasized. First, in
general, all programs or projects developed
components of community participation. Basically,
community participation was integrated in every
element of the program (Anam, 2006, Bandur,
2011). Second, some programs explicitly mentioned
community participation, for example in MBE,
REDIP JICA and REDIP-G, DBEP, CLCC, BEP,
and NTT-PEP (Muljoatmodjo, 2004; Bandur, 2012;
USAID-Prioritas, 2016; RTI-USAID, 2004). While
in SEQIP and CTL programs, community
involvement was included in the learning process
development and was not specifically developed
through training (Zürcher, 2013; Sunarsih, et al.,
2017). Third, the forms of community participation
in each program were not exactly similar (Anam,
2006). The similarities among programs were the
establishment and operationalization of school
committee including school implementation team
(task force), community participation in developing
school development plan and budgeting, in
implementing school activities, and in monitoring
school performance. The activities were initiated
such as workshops for developing community
monitoring, regular meetings for designing
schedules, and public accountability system.
The distinctive evidences considered to be the
good practices of community participation in both
REDIP-JICA and REDIP-G were the availability of
special community supports to school through
special institution like Sub-District Educational
Development Team (SDEDT), and true ownership
of education and its quality improvement,
involvement of all types of Junior Secondary
Schools (JSS), synergic approach conducted by the
school and the SDEDT in achieving the same
objectives through different programs conducted by
each party (school and SDEDT). Whereas in MBE,
CLCC and NTT-PEP the community supported the
children development through direct interaction in
the teaching learning process, raising the community
awareness, protecting children rights, and focusing
teaching learning on health and nutrition for the
lower level of primary school in NTT-PEP (Bandur,
2011; Firman and Tola, 2008).
3 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Capacity building to involve communities from the
national to the school level was reviewed as follows.
At the national level, MBE and CLCC have
similarities in the preparation of trainers to lower
levels (district level on MBE, and provincial level at
CLCC). Both covered the same content and
duration, which were six days for community-based
community participation-PAKEM. Both used a
couple of national expert trainer and facilitator.
MBE trained participants from the district. While
CLCC trained teachers, principals, supervisors and
education officials from each district and province.
The provincial level had little effect on
educational practices at lower levels due to
decentralization or district autonomy regulations.
CLCC and BEP began in the centralized era of the
country. Therefore, in the MBE and NTT-PEP
projects, capacity building at the district level was
more valuable than that at the provincial level. At
CLCC, training was consistent from national to
provincial and district levels regarding the
objectives, contents, duration, trainers, participants,
and methods. While BEP, which specifically
rehabilitated the physical parts of the schools,
organized capacity building at the provincial level
which then went down to a lower level. Community
participation in BEP dealt with the selection of
eligible school selection criteria, and established
community partnerships for school rehabilitation.
At the district level, there appeared to be some
uniqueness in terms of training goals and emphasis.
MBE concerned with school budget development
plans, but CLCC focused on TOT (training of
trainers) on school clusters, BEP on school
committee and community participation in school
management functions, and NTT-PEP on
collaboration between schools and communities
while using minimum service standards (MSS) to
prepare school plans. Consequently, the objectives
and contents of capacity building itself varied among
projects; MBE on drafting school plans and budgets;
CLCC on the capabilities and competence of
trainers; BEP on regulation, partnership, knowledge
and skills in school development; NTT-PEP on MSS
by introducing school-based management and
transparent and inclusive school committees.
Training itself spent different lengths of time.
There were held 3 days in MBE, 5 days in BEP, 6
The Evaluation of Community Participation in Basic Education Management
171

days in CLCC and NTT-PEP. The duration of time
reflected how broadly the contents were embodied
into their respective project activities. MBE was
most efficient at using time but other projects tended
to take longer to convince people for participating in
educational matters. Perhaps MBE had its own
formula for approaching the community without
losing the main points of objectives relating to local
conditions. Trainers and participants at the district
level also varied among MBE, CLCC, BEP and
NTT-PEP. The diversities were shown as follows.
The MBE trainers at the district level were district
coordinators and district facilitators supported by
national trainers, while the trainees were principals,
teachers, and supervisors. The CLCC trainers were
those who had passed the TOT at the provincial
level, and the participants were teachers. In BEP, the
trainers were technical assistants from Jakarta, and
educational management experts from the district,
district manager, head of district education office,
head of district education council, subdistrict MBS
team leader, and a secretary facilitated by the
district. In NTT-PEP, the trainers were international
MBS advisors, local MBS advisors, and gender
advisors. Participants were members of the school
committee, parents, and community leaders. The
methods used in the training were lectures, group
discussions (including focus group discussions),
simulations, modelling, participatory approaches.
At the school cluster level, BEP gave special
attention. The goals were to increase the knowledge
of school rehabilitation teams in planning and
managing school rehabilitation grants and providing
technical assistance to field coordinators in directing
physical work. The contents were: eligible school
selection criteria, regulations for implementing
school rehabilitation through school-community
partnerships, job descriptions of the school
rehabilitation team and field consultants, community
roles in rehabilitation and maintenance, the trainers
were national consultants (financial management,
procurement, construction). They trained Provincial
Project staff and District Project officers and related
units through participatory lectures and discussions.
For the school level, CLCC had a special
capacity building. The goal was to provide technical
assistance (extended training) to teachers in schools.
Provincial and district trainers trained teachers
during school hours through monitoring of teaching
practice, discussing and providing feedback. It was
organized by the Office of the District Office and the
Sub-District Branch Office.
4 METHODS
The purpose of this study was evaluation of
community participation in basic education schools.
The main question was how well the degree of
performance each participation aspects of the
community in schools that have experienced
educational innovation programs in terms of
education and project level.
Relevant tools needed for further study were
guideline for focus group discussion and
questionnaire. These were used in order to get the
data from the field.
Selected samples from 8 districts and 7 cities
from seven provinces based on four criteria. First,
the availability of programs that offered good
practices in the nine programs discussed in previous
sections, in the province and district respectively.
Second, the number of projects offered in certain
provinces, districts and subdistricts. Third, the
availability of schools where good practices, from
the nine programs were implemented. And fourth,
the preparedness of provinces, districts, subdistricts,
and schools to be visited.
The provinces that were decided to visit were
Central Java (Magelang City and Pekalongan
Regency), West Java (Sukabumi, Bekasi, and Kota
Bogor), West Nusa Tenggara (Central Lombok and
Mataram), Nusa Tenggara Timur (Ende Regency
and Kupang City), South Sulawesi (Bantaeng
Regency and Makassar City), South Kalimantan
(Barito Kuala District and Banjarmasin City), North
Sumatra (Deli Serdang District and Medan City).
From each district/city, 10-20 elementary schools
and about 10 junior secondary schools were picked
up.
Samples for questionnaires in 364 schools (264
elementary and 116 junior secondary schools)
consisted of 2415 teachers (1435 primary and 980
junior secondary teachers), 1785 parents/
community members (1289 in primary and 496 in
junior secondary). In each district, 80 people
(teachers and parents/community members) were
included in the Focus Group Discussion.
The quantitative data obtained were analyzed
descriptively and presented in graphs and supported
by qualitative data. Basically, comparisons between
projects were very useful in answering research
questions by taking into account the prominent good
practices of related projects.
ANCOSH 2018 - Annual Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities
172

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The five components of community participation,
obtained through focus group discussions (FGDs)
were: the form and intensity of community
involvement, community needs, community
satisfaction, communication systems, and
community-school partnerships. These five
components were accepted as a reflection of the
involvement under investigation (Barnett and
O'Mahony, 2007; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1995;
Sylva and Siraj-Blatchford, 1995). Each component
was elaborated into questionnaire form to obtain
data for the following analysis.
The first component was regarding the activities
and their intensities. The community participation in
various school activities was not apart from school
initiatives to invite them in various meetings. It was
important to the principals to accommodate teacher
and community participation in wide variety of
forms including questions, information, suggestions,
and objections. The high level of accommodation
by principal in primary level came from MBE, NTT-
PEP, and BEP. In addition, community or parents as
well as school committee were involved in
formulating school policies and plan.
Potential good practices of community
participation, as in Figure 1, were viewed based on
education level, i.e. primary and junior secondary
schools. In primary level, the prominent potential
good practices for this sub-component were in NTT-
PEP, MBE and CLCC; while in junior secondary
level were in DBEP, MBE and REDIP-G.
The evidences of such good practices based on
local characteristics in primary level prominently
emerged at District of Bekasi, Bantaeng and Ende;
whereas in junior secondary level these emerged in
District of Ende, Barito Kuala and Bantaeng. There
was significant difference of community
participation by education level in several
district/kotas as shown in Kota Kupang, District of
Bekasi, and Kota Banjarmasin. It seemed that some
projects may have influenced the others. For
instance, District of Bekasi, which junior
secondaries are developing good practices under
REDIP-G, also has the same potential good practices
in their primary level developed under BEP. Hence
community participation succeeded in different
places and programs as part of education in terms of
caring children and the degree of fulfilling their
needs (Epstein, 1995; Osterman, 2000; Henderson
and Map. 2002).
Proyek/program
CTL
SEQIP
NTT PEP
BEP
CLCC
DBEP
REDIP G
REDIP JICA
MBE
Keterlibatan masy
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
SEKOLAH
SD
SLP
Figure 1: Programs by education level.
The second component was on community
needs. Potential good practices of community needs
emerged with the indicators including community
aspiration of education, collaboration level among
parents to support education programs at school, and
the communities knew their children performance at
the school without asking to the school. The
following Figure 2 showed the community response
to their aspiration in education based on education
level.
The figure illustrated that community aspiration
generally emerged in each project with varied
intensities. Based on education level, the response to
community needs in junior secondary level was
higher than those in primary. For primary level,
potential good practices in accommodating
community needs emerged in MBE, NTT-PEP, and
BEP; meanwhile in junior secondary level such
potential good practices emerge in REDIP-G, MBE
and BEP.
In view of local characteristics (district/kota)
potential good practices for the component of
community needs seemed to be varied among
regions in line with the existence of project in each
district/kota. As shown in Kota Mataram, Kota
Bogor, Barito Kuala, and District of Deli Serdang,
accommodation to community needs in primary
level and junior secondary level was significantly
different to each other; while in other districts/kotas
were relatively the same. The community needs
were fulfilled as affected by the programs which
start from the upper level of schools related to the
policies (Henderson and Map, 2002; Osterman,
2000; JICA, 2013).
Figure 3. Community Satisfaction
The Evaluation of Community Participation in Basic Education Management
173

Proyek/program
CTL
SEQIP
NTT PEP
BEP
CLCC
DBEP
REDIP G
REDIP JICA
MBE
Mean NO8ABC
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
SEKOLAH
SD
SLP
Figure 2: Community Needs.
The third component was related to the
community satisfaction. The development and
existence of the school would highly depend on the
trust and satisfaction of consumers (community).
The community satisfaction in school could be
identified in several aspects, including satisfaction in
school performance covering student performance
and preparation of student to face occupation
demand.
In view of education level, Figure 3, the
prominent good practices of community satisfaction
in primary level were shown in NTT-PEP, MBE and
BEP. Under NTT-PEP regular reporting of student
performance by the school had been the aspect
highly needed by the community dealing with the
children performance. In junior secondary level, the
prominent potential good practices for sub-
component of community satisfaction appeared in
REDIP-G, REDIP-JICA, and BEP. The schools
under REDIP-G the community satisfaction was
particularly related to the preparation of student to
face occupation challenge in the future. For instance,
several junior secondary schools developed
computer laboratory and internet network with
support from LG Electronics and in cooperation with
PT Telkom.
The community satisfaction in view of condition
of district/kota seemed to be consistent in both
education levels, primary and junior secondary, in
the same region. The most potential good practices
of this sub-component in primary level in Kota
Kupang were the contribution of CLCC and SEQIP;
on the other hand, for junior secondary level were
shown in REDIP-G, REDIP-JICA, and CTL. The
results revealed that for being satisfied, there were
no need to elaborate it in detail since it was
consequence of good performance (Dutta-Beergman,
2005; Zürcher, 2013; Panduprodjo, 2015).
Figure 3: Community satisfaction.
The fourth component was on communication
systems. Emerging potential good practices of the
communication systems were the efforts to initiate
the relationship within the school and stakeholders
effective and accurate. Of course, the systems itself
opened to be assessed by principal, teacher, staff,
and stakeholders, and to enable adequate resolution
of school problems.
Figure 4 clearly showed that between the
primary and junior secondary, the potential good
practices of system communication in primary level
were shown in NTT-PEP, MBE, and BEP.
Particularly the systems under NTT-PEP was
developed through radio, which was a cooperation
between NTT-PEP and local radio stations;
however, for junior secondary level such potential
emerged in MBE, REDIP-G, and REDIP-JICA. For
MBE, the communication system was developed
through various media such as MBE Voice, website,
and other communication media.
In view of local characteristics, the potential
good practices on communication sub-component in
primary level was better in average compared with
those in junior secondary level. This because of
better relationship between parents and schools
happened. Even CLCC had developed an association
of parents for one classroom, which is able to act as
the bridge between student and parent needs, even,
in fact, the parents sometimes act as the teaching
learning resources. In view of local characteristics,
most potential good practices for the sub-component
of communication system in primary level came
from District of Bekasi, District of Deli Serdang,
and District of Pekalongan; while in junior
secondary level the most potential good practices
emerge in District of Ende, District of Bantaeng, and
Kota Bogor/District of Barito Kuala. Building the
system of communication not only requires the
participation of all people inside and outside the
Proyek/program
CTL
SEQIP
NTT PEP
BEP
CLCC
DBEP
REDIP G
REDIP JICA
MBE
Mean NO2
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
SEKOLAH
SD
SLP
ANCOSH 2018 - Annual Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities
174

Proyek/program
CTL
SEQIP
NTT PEP
BEP
CLCC
DBEP
REDIP G
REDIP JICA
MBE
Mean NO6
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
SEKOLAH
SD
SLP
school but also adjusts the programs to the local
conditions in different cultural background (Fitriah
et al., 2013; Cuellar and Theriot, 2017; Berger,
1991).
Figure 4: Communication system.
The last component pertaining the school-
community partnership was described. The potential
good practices of partnership were emerging in the
projects include community aspiration in education,
level of parental cooperation to support education
programs in school level, and parent’s assistance to
the children doing homework.
The illustration in Figure 5 expressed the
potential good practices of partnership sub-
component in primary level was better than those in
junior secondary level. For primary level, the most
potential good practices of this sub-component
emerge were shown in MBE, BEP, and NTT-PEP,
while in junior secondary level the contribution of
MBE, REDIP-G, and REDIP-JICA was significant.
Local characteristics (district/kota) did not
always appear in line with education level as shown
in Figure 5. It was found that in District of Kupang
and Bekasi, the potential good practices of
partnership in primary level was better than those in
junior secondary level, while in District of
Banjarmasin the potential good practices of this
component was better than those in primary level.
The District that had equal prominent good practices
of this sub-component in both primary and junior
secondary levels was District of Bantaeng. The
significant gap of potential good practices between
primary and junior secondary levels within one
region was shown in Kota Kupang, District of
Bekasi, and Kota Banjarmasin. The genuine and
healthy participation is constructed when the
partnership exists (Brian and Griffin, 2010; Sanders,
2001; Chrispeels, 1996). Those conspicuous
programs had proved how to take care of partnership
in order to achieve such kind of participation.
Proyek/program
CTL
SEQIP
NTT PEP
BEP
CLCC
DBEP
REDIP G
REDIP JICA
MBE
Mean NO4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
SEKOLAH
SD
SLP
Figure 5: Partnership.
6 CONCLUSIONS
All programs revealed that levels of education
interwoven community participation with varying
intensity. Although having a large variety in project
designs the involvement of community still appeared
as part of the overall development of education. The
strengths of NTT-PEP included aspects of
community involvement in planning and
implementation, community satisfaction, and
communication systems with communities; the MBE
on the partnership aspect; the REDIP-G on
community needs and community satisfaction; the
REDIP-JICA's strengths on communication system
and partnership; and the DBEP on community
involvement in school planning. The capacity that
made the success of implementation at
district/municipality level and schools depending on
the conditions of both providers’ and education
stakeholders’ commitment, the availability of
various supporting regulations, and the availability
of adequate human resources.
REFERENCES
ADB, 2001. Completion Report on the Junior Secondary
Education Project. (Loan 1194-INO). ADB PCR:
INO 24332. May.
ADB, 2004. Second Junior Secondary Education Project.
Loan 1573/1574-INO: Main Project Completion
Report. May.
The Evaluation of Community Participation in Basic Education Management
175

Anam, S., 2006. Sekolah Dasar: Pergulatan Mengejar
Ketertinggalan, Wajatri. Solo.
Barnett, B. G., O’Mahony, G. R., 2007. Developing a
Culture of Reflection: implications for school
improvement. Reflective Practice, 7(4), 499-523.
Bandur, A., 2011. Challenges in Globalising Public
Education Reform: Research-Based Evidence from
Flores Primary Schools, Global Journal of Human
Social Science Research, 11(3).
Bandur, A., 2012. Decentralization and School-Based
Management in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of
Educational Development, 6(1), 33-47.
Berger, E. H., 1991. Parent Involvement: Yesterday and
Today, Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 209-219.
Bergmann, H., Whewell, E., 2001. Report of SEQIP
Project Progress Review 2001. 21-31 August.
Brian, J., Griffin, D., 2010. A multidimensional study of
school-family-community partnership involvement:
School, school counselor, and training factors,
Professional School Counseling, 14(1), 75-86.
Bundu, P., 2009. Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Pendidikan
Dasar dan Menengah, Journal Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan, 15(3), 451-468.
Chrispeels, J., 1996. Effective schools and
home‐school‐community partnership roles: A
framework for parent involvement, School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(4), 297-323
Cohen-Vogel, L., Goldring, E. Claire Smrekar, E. C.,
2010. The Influence of Local Conditions on Social
Service Partnerships, Parent Involvement, and
Community Engagement in Neighborhood Schools,
American Journal of Education, 117 (1) , 51 – 78.
Cuellar, M. J., Theriot, M. T., 2017. Investigating the
Effects of Commonly Implemented School Safety
Strategies on School Social Work Practitioners in the
United States, Journal of the Society for Social Work
and Research, 8(4), 511–538.
Dreikurs, R. C. M., 1970. Parents and Teachers: friends or
enemies? Education, 91(2), 147-154.
Dutta-Beergman, M. J., 2005. Access to the Internet in the
Context of Community Participation and Community
Statisfaction. New Media and Society, 7(1), 89-109.
Epstein, J. L., 1995. School/Family/Community
Partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701.
Epstein, J. L., 2009. School, Family, and Community
Partnership: caring for the children we share. In
School, Family, and Community Partnership: Your
Handbook for Action (pp 1-56). Edited by J.L.
Epstein Et Al. Corwin Press – Sage Company.
Thousand Oaks, CA
Firman, H., Tola, B., 2008. The future of schooling in
Indonesia, Journal of International Cooperation in
Education, 11(1), 71-84.
Fitriah, A., Sumintono, B., Subekti, N.B., Hassan, Z.,
2013. A Different Result of Community Participation
in Education: an Indonesian case study of parental
participation in public primary schools, Asia Pacific
Education Review, 13(4), 483-493.
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., 2002. A New Wave of
Evidence: the impact of school, family, and
community connections on student achievement –
annual synthesis 2002. National Center for Family
and Community Connections with Schools – SEDK.
Austin, TX.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., Burow, R., 1995.
Parents’ Students” Homework: strategies and
practices, The Elementary School Journal, 95(5),
435-450.
JICA, 2013. Program for Enhancing Quality of Junior
Secondary Education. (Downloaded from
https://www/JICA.go.jp/project/English/Indonesia/08
00042/index.html, accessed on April 11, 2018).
Ministry of Education and Culture, 2013. Overview of the
Education Sector in Indonesia: Achievement and
Challenges. Jakarta.
Muljoatmodjo, S., 2004. Task1 Most Critical and
important capacity gaps in basic education. Progres
Report 1 for UNICEF. Jakarta, June. (Unpublished).
Osterman, K. F., 2000. Students’ Need for Belonging in
the School Community, Review of Educational
Research, 70(3), 323-367.
Panduprodjo, P., 2015. SEQIP. Kapan lagi ada Program
Sejenis. (Downloaded from
https://www.kompasiana.com/mintadi/seqip-kapan-
lagi-ada-program-
sejenis_5528096df17e61a7068b4591, accessed on
April 10, 2018).
RTI-USAID, 2004. Managing Basic Education:
developing local government capacity (an
introduction to the program). Bulletin. May.
Sanders, M. G., 2001. The Role of "Community" in
Comprehensive School, Family, and Community
Partnership Programs, The Elementary School
Journal, 102 (1), 19 – 34.
Sunarsih, A., Sukarmin, and Sunarno, W., 2017. The
impact of natural science contextual teaching through
project method to students’ achievement in MTsN
Miri Sragen, International Journal of Science and
Applied Science: Conference Series, 2(1), 45-50.
Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., 1995. Bridging the Gap
Between Home and Schol: improving achievement in
primary schools. Unesco. Paris.
Tunison, S., 2013. The Wicehtowak Partnership:
Improving Student Learning by Formalizing the
Family-Community-School Partnership, American
Journal of Education, 119 (4), 565 – 590.
USAID-Prioritas, 2016. Managing Basic Education
(MBE). Downloaded from
http://www.prioritaspendidikan.org/en/pages/view/re
ad/decentralized-basic-education, accessed on April
10, 2017).
World Bank, 2000. Implementation Completion Report on
Indonesia Primary Education Quality Improvement
Project. Loan 3448-IND. Report No. 20435-IND. 20
April.
Zürcher, D., 2013. Ex-post Evaluation of SEQIP in
Indonesia (2013). On
http://www.kek.ch/en/kunden/mandate/145 (retrieved
on 10 April 2018).
ANCOSH 2018 - Annual Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities
176