Efficiency in BOS (School Operational Costs) Management:

A Comparative Study between Urban and Rural Areas

Some photos at West Bandung

Background:

• BOS is a national policy and it does not consider major issue of regional discrepancy.

• The amount of fund allocation does not meet the needs.

• Long bureaucratic chain involved in the BOS implementation is an issue of concern.

• BOS administration is a long chain.

• Not all school needs can be funded by BOS.

The purpose, The specific objectives, and hypothesis

• The purpose of this study is to compare efficiency in BOS management considering differences in school management and fund disbursement.

• The specific objectives: to understand the differences of schools perceptions in BOS fund utilization priorities and to observe the efficiency of BOS fund management in Bandung Municipalityand West Bandung Regency.

• Hypothesis: the efficiency of BOS fund management is different in rural and urban areas.

Methodology

• This study used mix method between quantitative and qualitative with PETS (Public Expenditure Tracking Survey) instrument. The step is as follow:

1. Baseline Studies/Desk study.

2. Field Survey.

3. In depth interview.

4. Focus Group Discussion.

Regional DescriptionBandung West Bandung

Area

167,67 km2

Comprises of 30 Kecamatan and 151 kelurahan

1.305,77 km2

Comprises of 15 kecamatan and 165 desa

Topography

Relatively flat, makes easy accessibility in this region.

Mountaneous and wavy topography makes low accessibility to this region

Population (2008) 2.329.928 people 1.534.869 people

Population of schooling age

1.550.757 people 1.215.531 people

Population in attending school

Not/not yet attend school 11.761 people 18.271 people

Still attend school 381.588 people 208.426 people

No longer attend school 1.577.746 people 988.834 people

BOS fund allocation and its target

Year SD/MI/SDLB

(Rupiah)Target

2005 235,000 Providing aids for poor students (scholarship)

2006 235,000 Providing aids for poor students

2007 254,000Free tuition fee for poor students Reducing education costs for other students

2008 254,000Free tuition fee for poor students Reducing education costs for other students

2009400,000 (kota)397,000(kab)

Free tuition fee for public elementary schoolsProviding aid for private schools

School Respondents

The Main Findings on School Management

• BOS application

• BOS impact

• School priorities

• Similarity and differences in managing the BOS fund

BOS application: the respondent did not agree with this three

statement:

1. Schools never receive payment of BOS fund late than they should (every 3 months).

2. Juklak/juknis that regulates utilization become a hinder for schools in spending BOS fund.

3. Honorarium given by schools to honorary teachers suffice their needs.

Comparation of Average Value of BOS application

No Statement BandungWest

Bandung

1Schools provide complete dissemination to parents and society on BOS

4.497 4.482

2Schools never receive payment of BOS fund late than they should (every 3 months)

2.978 3.067

3Education Service always confirm schools when BOS fund would arrive late

4.067 4.006

4Schools utilize BOS fund in accordance with juklak/juknis on what should and should not be financed

4.378 4,289

5Juklak/juknis that regulates utilization become a hinder for schools in spending BOS fund.

2.839 2.272

6BOS fund is utilized inconsistently with stipulation because of emergency reason (for instance, national exam fund arrives late)

3.442 3.412

7 BOS fund received is insufficient for school operational 3.457 3.452

8 Every teacher knows BOS fund utilization in schools 4.407 4.4

9Schools hold meetings of BOS fund and the meetings are attended by school committee

4.111 4.289

10Honorarium given by schools to honorary teachers suffice their needs

2.909 2.836

BOS impact:

• BOS program is good and having positive impact on schools. Nevertheless, its mechanism and quantity is not in accordance with what expected.

Average Score of the BOS Impact

No The BOS ImpactBandung’s

Average Score West Bandung ’s

Average Score

21 After the BOS is implemented, no more dropout 4.467 4.044

22 After the BOS is implemented, school does not necessary to collect any expenses from students (for public elementary schools)

4.267 4.222

23 After the BOS is implemented, quality of school graduates improves 4.1 3.927

24 After the BOS is implemented, student achievements in learning improve 4.06 4.113

25 After the BOS is implemented, quality of teacher / instructor improves 4.233 4.14

26 After the BOS is implemented, quality of teaching materials improve 4.309 4.206

Continued

No The BOS ImpactBandung’s

Average Score West Bandung ’s

Average Score

27 After the BOS is implemented, schools have more extracurricular activities 4.318 4.205

28 After the BOS is implemented, quality of Teaching-Learning Activities increasingly improves 4.274 4.178

39 Schools are content with the BOS program mechanism and system 3.533 3.8

30 Schools are content with amount of the BOS fund they receive 3.178 3.289

School Priorities:

• Learning teaching activities and honorary teacher salary become the first and second priorities in both region.

• Capacity building for teacher becomes priority in Bandung.

Priority Comparison in BOS Fund Usage Based on Respondent Scoring

No BOS Fund UsageWest

BandungPriority Bandung Priority

1 Learning Teaching Activities

24.00 1 23.11 1

2 Honorary teacher salary 23.56 2 20.44 2

3 Course books 20.00 3 14.22 4

4 Stationery and Office Equipment

14.22 4 13.78 5

5 Improvements in teacher qualities

7.56 5 15.11 3

6 Extracurricular activities 4.44 6 3.11 7

7 Building rehabilitations 3.56 7 2.22 8

8 Water, electricity, telephone utilities

2.22 8 4.89 6

9 Official travels, meetings 0.44 9 1.33 10

10 Poor students 0.00 10 1.78 9

11 Goods (refreshments, logistics, etc.)

0.00 10 0.00 11

12 Computers 0.00 10 0.00 11

13 Others 0.00 10 0.00 11

Similarity in School BOS Management between Bandung and West Bandung

NOASPECTS OF

MANAGEMENTBANDUNG AND WEST BANDUNG

1. Planning Plan meeting on school funding is performed once a year, at the beginning of school year. The meeting involves School Committee.

2. Monitoring The provincial BOS Management Team performs monitoring by sample system.

Schools do not announce statement of the BOS fund usage on school’s announcement board.

3. Evaluation Evaluation performed by holding BOS management team’s meeting every three months and at the end of school year.

Difference in BOS Management between Bandung and West Bandung

NOASPECTS OF

MANAGEMENTBANDUNG WEST BANDUNG

1. Planning 3 of 15 respondent school involves their School Committees in the meeting on the BOS planning

6 of 15 respondent school involves their School Committees in the meeting on the BOS planning

2. Organizing The team consists of Principal, Treasurer, and Committee. The treasurer is the school’s administration staff. He/She is not a teacher.

The team consists of Principal, Treasurer, and Committee. The treasurer doubles as teacher.

Usually record-keeping is performed by computer. The schools are accustomed to manage large funds.

Record-keeping is performed manually. Computerized record-keeping is performed by using rental computer service.

Continued

NOASPECTS OF

MANAGEMENTBANDUNG WEST BANDUNG

School Committee has minor role in decision making. They perform consideration tasks only.

School Committee does not have enough information about the BOS. Only their signature is necessary.

3. Implementation The priorities:1.Learning Teaching Activities2.Honorary teacher salary3.Improvements in teacher qualities4.Course books5.Stationery and Office Equipment

The priorities:1.Learning Teaching Activities2.Improvements in teacher qualities3.Course books4.Stationery and Office Equipment 5.Improvements in teacher qualities

All record-keeping tasks are performed by computer.

Not all schools perform data computerization. Schools with a few students have no computer yet.

The Main findings on BOS Fund Disbursement

1. Tardiness in delivering the fund: from State Budget’s account to school’s bank account (long data-collection chains) and school’s bank account to be used by BOS Management Team at school (school financial reports).

2. Fund discount: this contribution becomes a kind of discount, which is agreed by schools, to finance UPTD activities that involve schools.

3. Difference in budget year and academic year: budget year is from January to December and academic year is from June to July.

Conclusions

1. There is no significant difference between efficiency of BOS fund utilization in urban and rural areas.

2. In general, BOS fund utilization efficiency in urban areas is slightly better than that of rural areas in terms of financial management and involvement of school committee. Otherwise, involvement of school committees is still limited to provide consideration, instead of being policy maker.

3. The late of fund disbursement is because of the long data-collection chains and difficulties in preparing school financial reports.

4. More that 20% of BOS is used to pay honorary teacher salary, however, it does not influence to BOS fund efficiency.

Recommendations

1. Simplification of student data-collection. It is to minimize delay of disbursement.

2. Capacity building of school BOS Management Team (strategic management for headmasters, finance management for treasures, advocacy management for schools committee include parents)

3. Promoting local governments to allocate salary for honorary teachers from Local Budget, instead of BOS.

4. Building communication between Schools, School Committee, Parents.

5. Strengthening parents association for monitoring schools and the use of BOS fund.

Thank You