School Improvement Framework for Indonesia Yuna Puteri Kadarisman* 1 , Moh. Rifqi Rahman 2 , Suyanto 3 , Cepi Safruddin Abd Jabar 3 and Ahmad Umar 4 • Indonesia is determined to improve the quality of education. Many top- down policies have been issued to direct the necessary improvement, from making education compulsory from grade 1 to grade 9 in 1977, to the withdrawal of the high-stakes exam policy in 2021. However, none of these policies encourages schools to conduct school improvement plans tailored to their needs. Instead, they tend to be directed towards school effectiveness or quality assurance. The present research aims to formulate a school improvement framework of domains and indicators culturally and institutionally suitable for Indonesian settings. The study implements a systematic literature review methodology to extract and synthesise the most pertinent and prevalent domains from a corpus of relevant literature on school improvement frameworks. Four overarch - ing domains of recommended focal points for school improvement efforts are determined: (1) Teaching and Learning, (2) Leadership and Management, (3) Assessment, and (4) Community and Culture. The research underscores the foundational role of pertinent data collection in these domains. Furthermore, the study discusses the implications of these emerging domains for the academic community and policymak - ers, highlighting how the proposed framework can significantly contrib - ute to refining school improvement practices and policies in Indonesia. Detailed subdomains and domain indicators serve as theoretical impli - cations to be elaborated in further research. Keywords: school effectiveness, quality assurance, school improvement, framework, systematic literature review 1 *Corresponding Author. PhD student at Universitas Negeri Y ogyakarta, Indonesia; yunakadarisman14@gmail.com. 2 Institut Al Azhar Menganti Gresik, Indonesia. 3 Universitas Negeri Y ogyakarta, Indonesia. 4 Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, Indonesia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1865 Published on-line as Recently Accepted Paper: December 2024 c e p s Journal school improvement framework for indonesia 2 Okvir za izboljšanje šol v Indoneziji Yuna Puteri Kadarisman, Moh. Rifqi Rahman, Suyanto, Cepi Safruddin Abd Jabar in Ahmad Umar • Indonezija je odločena izboljšati kakovost svojega izobraževanja. Za usmerjanje potrebnih izboljšav so bile izdane številne politike od zgoraj navzdol, od uvedbe obveznega izobraževanja od prvega do devetega ra - zreda leta 1977 do umika politike preverjanj znanja s pomembnimi po - sledicami za učence (na podlagi njihove uspešnosti) leta 2021. Nobena izmed teh politik pa ne spodbuja šol k izvajanju načrtov za izboljšanje šol, ki bi bili prilagojeni njihovim potrebam. Namesto tega so običaj - no usmerjene v učinkovitost šol ali zagotavljanje kakovosti. Namen te raziskave je oblikovati okvir za izboljšanje šol, ki bi obsegal področja in kazalnike, kulturno in institucionalno primerne za indonezijsko okolje. Študija uporablja metodologijo sistematičnega pregleda literature, da bi iz korpusa na to tematiko vezane literature o okvirih za izboljšanje šol izluščila in strnila najbolj relevantne in prevladujoče domene. Določe - na so štiri osrednja področja priporočenih glavnih točk za prizadevanja za izboljšanje šol: 1) poučevanje in učenje; 2) vodenje in upravljanje; 3) ocenjevanje; 4) skupnost in kultura. Raziskava poudarja temeljno vlogo ustreznega zbiranja podatkov na teh področjih. Poleg tega študija obrav - nava posledice teh nastajajočih področij za akademsko skupnost in obli - kovalce politik ter poudarja, kako lahko predlagani okvir pomembno prispeva k piljenju praks in politik za izboljšanje šol v Indoneziji. Po - drobni kazalniki podpodročij in področij služijo kot teoretične posledi - ce, ki jih je treba razviti v nadaljnjih raziskavah. Ključne besede: učinkovitost šole, zagotavljanje kakovosti, izboljšanje šol, okvir, sistematični pregled literature c e p s Journal 3 Introduction Research on school quality and school improvement in Indonesia re - mains fragmented and needs more comprehensive coverage. Some studies ad - vocate enhancing capacity building to elevate education quality (Sumintono et al., 2012, 2014), while others promote community involvement, including active engagement from parents (Pradhan et al., 2014) and emphasise a con - ducive school climate to cultivate a quality improvement culture (Budiharso & Tarman, 2020). Some scholars highlight local wisdom to instil a commit - ment to quality improvement (Hayudiyani et al., 2020), foster the critical role of evaluating school management practices (Bandur et al., 2022; Iswan et al., 2021; Marpaung et al., 2023; Siahaan et al., 2023), or even harness the necessity to re-evaluate the policy of accreditation (Susetyo et al., 2022). In Indonesia, two governing bodies oversee education: the Ministry of Edu - cation (MOE) and the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA). Together, they are responsible for the management of 399,376 schools and madrasahs (Finaka, 2023), 56.63% of which are private schools and madrasahs (Annur, 2023; Kemenag, 2024). Reform will therefore be challenging unless the initiative includes a bottom-up drive. Over the years, the Ministry of Education has issued various policies to enhance education quality across Indonesia. In 1977, the Indonesian govern - ment achieved a significant milestone by establishing compulsory education for grades 1–6 of elementary school. Subsequently, several programmes were introduced in 1978 to elevate the quality of teachers, curricula, books and edu - cational support systems (Werf et al., 2000). In 1990, teachers were incentivised to attend professional development programmes and training to promote pro - fessional growth (Nielsen, 1998). Advancement came in 2001 with the intro - duction of school-based management to empower schools to enhance student attainment (Bandur, 2018). Further developments include the policy of decen - tralisation of education, which enables schools to manage their resources (Gov - ernment of Indonesia, 2004), and a data-based improvement to plan, monitor and evaluate quality improvement in schools (Kemendikbudristek, 2022). De - spite these efforts, the latest MOE policy lacks a clear framework for sustainable data-based improvement to guide and focus on the improvement process. This budding partial attention to improving the quality of education in Indonesia calls for a comprehensive framework to map ideas into one policy recommendation, in order to avoid the ‘free-floating’ phenomenon whereby ideas float and have only a minimal impact on the implemented policy (Hop - kins & Reynolds, 2001). In order to ensure the impact of education quality im - provement initiatives, there is also a need for a comprehensive set of domains to school improvement framework for indonesia 4 enable schools and policymakers to measure the improvement and response in a relevant way (Reezigt & Creemers, 2005). Unfortunately, there is still minimal research in the area of school improvement. Moreover, many of the policies im - plemented in Indonesia still focus on either education assurance or education effectiveness, with little to no emphasis on school improvement. The national exam, as the only standardised end-of-school exam, was discontinued in Indonesia in 2021 (Kemdikbud, 2021). Many high schools sub - sequently changed their effectiveness measurements from national assessment scores to university acceptance rates: the more students accepted into prestig - ious state universities, the better the quality of the school. However, the same consideration cannot be applied to elementary and junior high schools, as the government removed the label of elite schools when implementing the zoning policy in 2017 (Wahidi, 2022). These popularity contests are closer to school effectiveness than to school improvement. School effectiveness is the ability of a school to perform its functions efficiently (Cheng, 2022), while school functions relate to the output and outcomes of school graduates (Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools, 2021). Consequently, using school effectiveness to measure education quality is prone to bias, as many inequalities result in schools’ outputs and outcomes (Scherer & Nilsen, 2019). Similarly, the accreditation programme cannot serve as a foundation for school improvement in Indonesia, as accreditation is more closely related to quality assurance. Quality assurance in education relies on how well schools meet the standards prescribed by policy (Loock & Scherman, 2020), while quality improvement is an iterative process involving goal setting, data collec - tion and evaluation (Schildkamp, 2019). Moreover, in the discussion of school improvement, the goal, data collection and success criteria are set by each school with regard to their needs and educational objectives (Grützmacher et al., 2023). In the long run, these improvements are expected to meet or go be - yond the standards of quality set by the related policies. Each educational context implements different standards for quality as - surance (Flavian, 2020; Rosa et al., 2020). In Indonesia, the accreditation pro - cess uses the eight Standar Nasional Pendidikan (SNP) [Standards of National Education]. Quality assurance provides a unified quality measurement and an easy fix for school effectiveness. However, the set standards cannot be too high, as only a few schools could meet them, which would indicate low standards of education throughout the country; nor can they be too low, as they would lose their primary purpose of increasing the national quality of education. In an accreditation process, a low-performing school with a limited budget is unable to select its preferred measures for improvement; if its chosen c e p s Journal 5 improvement does not adhere to the prescribed standards, it will not be recog - nised, even if it is necessary for the school. For example, the school might de - cide that it needs to improve communication between teachers and parents, so it establishes a new online channel to send school-related information directly to parents. This breakthrough represents essential progress for the school, but since it is not on the list of accreditation standards, it will not be noticed and will not impact the school’s accreditation result. On the other hand, a high-performing school does not have room for improvement once it has met all of the standardised criteria. Once it has achieved an ‘ A ’ assessment, there are no more boxes to tick or indicators to fulfil. School assurance is vital to enable policymakers to observe the overall quality of education. However, it is limited by the fact that it does not provide room for schools positioned at the extremes of the quality continuum to show progress, whether they are situated on the far left or the far right of the spectrum. The only aspect related to school improvement in the Indonesian context is the educational goals of Indonesia, as outlined in Law 20 Year 2003 regarding the System of National Education: “The cultivation of students’ potential to foster individuals with faith and reverence towards God, characterised by moral integ - rity, robust physical health, academic acumen, adeptness, creativity, autonomy, and the embodiment of democratic principles alongside a sense of accountability as citizens” (Government of Indonesia, 2003). These overarching objectives are relevant regardless of any change in the intended curriculum, but without proper details an unnecessary bias is created that hinders any attempt to attain them. As school improvement closely reflects the implementation of improve - ment plans, school stakeholders and policymakers need to be able to translate the intended policy and regulations into feasible routines if sound improve - ment is to be achieved (Nordholm & Adolfsson, 2023). In light of this, the pre - sent study offers recommendations concerning school improvement within the framework of Indonesian education. The study aims to fill the gap in the need for a school improvement frame - work in Indonesia. An improvement framework is necessary to help design practical approaches to evaluating quality before developing relevant plans to improve the quality of education (Garira, 2020)it can be difficult to obtain such descriptions in an effective manner. This article aims to propose a unified conceptual framework for quality of education in schools to facilitate an understanding of the quality of education. The conceptual framework proposed here is multi-dimensional in na - ture and based on operational experience by the authors with studying education systems’ performance in general, and particularly, quality of education in schools. The unified conceptual framework proposed here is informed by systems theory school improvement framework for indonesia 6 and acknowledges the interdependence among the components of quality of educa - tion and levels of the education system. In conclusion, we reiterate the importance of a conceptual framework for quality of education that explicates the relationships among the numerous education components (inputs, processes, and outputs. A framework designed for a specific context will yield more targeted improvement re - sults (Reezigt & Creemers, 2005). In addition, the framework must balance global relevance in educational development with a focus on local issues, ensuring that the anticipated improvements address regional challenges effectively while contribut - ing to quality enhancement recognised worldwide. Therefore, the present research introduces a localised perspective that grounds the research findings in context. This approach does not aim to oversimplify complexities, but to demonstrate that the framework is genuinely suited to resolving the problem contextually. While Indone - sia still needs to acquire a contextual framework to guide the improvement of school quality, other neighbouring countries and beyond have developed their framework in a context on the level of the nation, the state or even the district. Australia has School Performance Improvement Frameworks (SPIF) (Australian Department of Education, 2014); Scotland has the National Improvement Framework (NIF) (Forde & Torrance, 2021; Leng, 2019); Washington, USA, has the Washington School Im- provement Framework (WSIF) (Washington State Board of Education, 2020); and even Lewisham, a district in south-east London, has developed its own context-spe - cific school improvement framework (Lewisham Learning, 2024). A framework for planned programmes is essential because it provides a common language for discussion related to the issues that may arise in pro - gramme planning, implementation or evaluation (Evans et al., 2012). To be pre - cise, the school improvement framework allows policymakers to identify the core component of the school improvement process, support schools through this process, and assess the performance against the domains and indicators of the framework (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, 2014). Howev - er, the OECD (2020) recommends including only a few domains and indicators in the school improvement framework, in order to avoid turning the evaluation process into a checking-the-box exercise. The conceptual framework should comprehensively discuss Indonesia’s school improvement issues. This discussion is expected to help formulate a framework that encompasses the key domains essential to the school improve - ment process in countries worldwide and includes subdomains that address local issues specific to Indonesia. Below are the research questions that guide the discussion of the present research. 1. What are the recommended domains for the school improvement framework for Indonesia’s educational context? c e p s Journal 7 2. What are the recommended subdomains for the domains of the im - provement framework for Indonesia’s educational context? Method The present study employs a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) meth - odology to investigate school improvement research and frameworks published since the year 2000. The SLR approach is designed to minimise bias in iden - tifying, selecting, synthesising and interpreting relevant literature in order to address the research questions (Mareza et al., 2024; Moher et al., 2015), while also providing evidence-based grounds for further policy studies (Booth et al., 2022). In order to facilitate this process, the study utilises the PRISMA (Pre - ferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework, which provides a structured technique for systematically selecting, reducing and analysing relevant databases by encompassing several critical stages: search strategy, selection criteria, selection process, data collection and analysis (Idris et al., 2022). These stages are systematically categorised into four main phases: identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion, as illustrated in Figure 1. In the identification stage, the present study utilises the databases htt- ps://www.tandfonline.com/, https://journals.sagepub.com/, https://eric.ed.gov/, https://www.jstor.org/, and https://garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/. The initial inten - tion was to include some frameworks or research on frameworks from Indo - nesia; however, at the time this article was developed, no relevant record of a school improvement framework for the Indonesian context was found. In order to maintain a perspective available to the average readership in Indonesia, the research focuses on open-access frameworks, journal articles and reports; not all policy researchers or policymakers have access to restrictive journals to support their intention to develop similar frameworks. The research employs Boolean search techniques to find relevant articles about the school improvement framework according to the RQs. The search was initiated by implementing two keywords – “school improvement” AND “framework” – in order to focus more on school improvement as opposed to “school effectiveness” , while the keyword “framework” was used to focus more on the framework as opposed to the “design” or “plan” . On the other hand, the research uses general keywords and is not specifically tailored to the RQs. This is because some articles only mention the domain (RQ 1) but do not mention the subdomain to ensure that the proposed domains are relevant to the local context in Indonesia (RQ 2). However, such articles still fall under the category of the school improvement framework. school improvement framework for indonesia 8 Next is the screening stage, as summarised in Table 1. The research only includes articles from the year 2000 onwards, in order to ensure that the shift - ing trend of framework development is covered. Articles in books, series of books, chapters in books, reports and research articles are included, but we - blogs are excluded, in order to ensure that the chosen documents are finalised and timestamped properly. Moreover, the emphasis is on frameworks that focus on education in general, such as K-12 education, while frameworks applied to specific majors (e.g., nursing education) or outside K-12 education (e.g., higher education) are excluded. Frameworks that claim to be aimed at school improve - ment but in fact only discuss certain qualities in education, such as quality as - surance and school effectiveness, are also excluded School improvement frameworks aim to acquire sustainability of the expected qualities (Askell-Williams & Koh, 2020), so it is essential to carefully develop domains and subdomains that align with the specific context. In this re - gard, domains and subdomain indicators are extracted from the documents us - ing three lenses, as recommended by Alexander (2013) and Heck (2004), in order to help organise the literature and delimit the scope based on the problems dis - cussed. Alexander (2013) recommends three lenses to examine policy: a rational framework to cover relevant goals, a cultural framework to explore the appropri - ate cultural background of schools in Indonesia, and an institutional framework to focus on structural factors based on the Indonesian context of school admin - istrations. Heck (2004) then recommends using cultural perspectives to translate the framework into policy processes in the target context, i.e., Indonesia. These limitations reduce the records significantly to 28 documents. Table 1 below pro - vides details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the article search. Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria Criteria Inclusion Exclusion Timeline 2000–present Before 2000 Type of article Book, series of books, chapter in book, report, research article Weblog Focus K-12 education as general Specific major in education Discussion School improvement Quality assurance, school effectiveness Language English Non-English Eligibility is the stage that follows the application of inclusion and ex - clusion criteria. The present study’s eligibility stage involved a manual pro - cess, whereby manuscripts were reviewed based on their titles and abstracts to ensure relevance. Articles that lack relevance, fail to address the domain and c e p s Journal 9 indicators of school improvement, or are written in a non-English language were removed from the list of articles. Consequently, out of the 21,428 arti - cle documents initially identified, only 28 remained eligible after the eligibility stage. These 28 articles will serve as the primary reference for developing the domain (RQ 1) and subdomain (RQ 2) of the school improvement framework. The results of each process are summarised briefly in Figure 1. Figure 1 The PRISMA flow diagram in the school improvement framework research school improvement framework for indonesia 10 The present research aims to propose a school improvement framework based on a review of previous research findings. In essence, it synthesises data from mixed-design framework research. Therefore, the data analysis technique employed in the research is qualitative thematic analysis. According to Flem - ming et al. (2019), thematic analysis is the most efficient method for synthesis - ing data from mixed-design research. Additionally, Xu and Zammit (2020) ar - gue that this analysis is similar to synthesising interpretation and explanation. Consequently, the 28 research findings were meticulously reviewed, fo - cusing on abstracts, findings and discussions. Data addressing RQ 1 and RQ 2 were collected and abstracted for further evaluation. Thematic analysis was then conducted to identify the composition of relevant domain themes and subdomains by noting similarities, counting, grouping and detecting patterns among domains and subdomains. The origin and type of documents used in the research are explained below. Table 2 Descriptions of the 28 eligible articles No. Type of document Relevant to 1. Framework document States in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, ESI project countries in Europe, Scotland, Wales 2. Journal article Across nations 3. Report on framework utilisation States in Australia, Kazakhstan, States in the USA Ethics statement The research did not access any raw data, nor did it involve human and animal subjects. The reviews on which it was based aggregated studies that had already received ethical approval. Consequently, no additional ethical approval was necessary. Results and Discussion The 28 documents selected were divided into categories based on the domains they put forward to characterise improvements. Table 3 shows the four domains of the highest frequency used in all of the records. c e p s Journal 11 Table 3 Four domains with the highest frequency in the 28 documents Domain Frequency of occurrence Percentage of occurrence Teaching and Learning 21 75.00% Community and Culture 17 60.71% Leadership 16 57.14% Assessment 14 50.00% The domain selection (RQ 1) was determined based on the frequency within the 28 selected documents, as shown in Table 2, and then the determina - tion of subdomains (RQ 2) was further elaborated directly from the 28 docu - ments, with careful consideration of the Indonesian context. Table 4 below pro - vides a more detailed breakdown of subdomain findings based on the domain above, considering three lenses: goal, cultural and institutional. Table 4 The subdomains derived from the domains Domain Subdomains Sources Teaching and Learning 1. Inspiring teacher 2. Excellent teaching 3. Stimulating learning (ACT Department of Education and Training, 2009; Australian Council for Educational Research, 2023; Australian Department of Education, 2010; Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, 2014; Department for Education, Children and Young People, 2022; Dimmock, 2002; Edu- cation Review Office of New Zealand, 2022; Institute for Educational Research, 2001; Mackey & Alabama State Superintendent of Education, 2020; Masters & Australian Council for Educational Research, 2010; Ministry of Education of Canada, 2013; NSW Government, 2023; Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015; Reezigt & Creemers, 2005; School Improvement Design Unit, 2022; Scottish Government, 2022; Texas Education Agency, 2019; University of California, 2021; Unterman et al., 2023; Welsh Government, 2021; WestEd, 2017)2020; Masters & Australian Council for Educational Research, 2010; Ministry of Educa- tion of Canada, 2013; NSW Government, 2023; Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015; Reezigt & Creemers, 2005; School Improve- ment Design Unit, 2022; Scottish Government, 2022; Texas Education Agency, 2019; University of California, 2021; Unterman et al., 2023; Welsh Government, 2021; WestEd, 2017 Leadership and Management 1. Strategic lead- ership 2. Resourceful and effective management 3. Transparent and organised administration (ACT Department of Education and Training, 2009; Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, 2014; Department for Education, Children and Young People, 2022; Dimmock, 2002; Education Review Office of New Zealand, 2022; Evans et al., 2012; Mackey & Alabama State Superintendent of Education, 2020; Ministry of Education of Canada, 2013; Northern Territory Government, 2016; NSW Govern- ment, 2023; Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015; School Improvement Design Unit, 2022; Scottish Government, 2022; Texas Education Agency, 2019; Welsh Government, 2021; WestEd, 2017)2020; Ministry of Education of Canada, 2013; Northern Territory Government, 2016; NSW Government, 2023; Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015; School Improvement Design Unit, 2022; Scottish Government, 2022; Texas Education Agency, 2019; Welsh Government, 2021; WestEd, 2017 school improvement framework for indonesia 12 Domain Subdomains Sources Assessment 1. Meaningful assessment 2. Constructive feedback 3. Comprehensive assessment data (Australian Department of Education, 2010; Dimmock, 2002; Educa- tion Review Office of New Zealand, 2022; Institute for Educational Research, 2001; Ministry of Education of Canada, 2013; Minnesota Department of Education, 2022; Nahar et al., 2022; OECD, 2020; Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015; Reezigt & Creem- ers, 2005; School Improvement Design Unit, 2022; Texas Education Agency, 2019; Unterman et al., 2023; Washington State Board of Education, 2020) Community and Culture 1. Continuous professional development 2. Positive school culture 3. Engaged community (ACT Department of Education and Training, 2009; Australian Council for Educational Research, 2023; Australian Department of Education, 2010; Education Review Office of New Zealand, 2022; Institute for Educational Research, 2001; Mackey & Alabama State Superintendent of Education, 2020; Masters & Australian Council for Educational Research, 2010; Ministry of Education of Canada, 2013; Minnesota Department of Education, 2022; Nahar et al., 2022; Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015; Reezigt & Creemers, 2005; Scottish Government, 2022; Texas Education Agency, 2019; Unterman et al., 2023; Vermont Agency of Education, 2020; WestEd, 2017)2020; Masters & Australian Council for Educational Research, 2010; Ministry of Education of Canada, 2013; Minnesota Department of Education, 2022; Nahar et al., 2022; Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015; Reezigt & Creemers, 2005; Scottish Government, 2022; Texas Education Agency, 2019; Unterman et al., 2023; Vermont Agency of Education, 2020; WestEd, 2017 The study limits the context of discussion to schools in Indonesia, so subdo - mains irrelevant to the Indonesian curriculum were excluded from the list. Some examples include the arrangement of school systems that implement the grade divi - sion 6–8 and 9–12 as middle school and high school, respectively (Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015), as opposed to the system in Indonesia, which di - vides grades into 7–9 and 10–12 as middle school and high school respectively. An - other exclusion criterion is the role of headteachers (Scottish Government, 2022), which is not known in the Indonesian context. Subdomains that refer to a specific part of the local curriculum are also excluded from the discussion. This includes the implementation of dual credit participation to monitor the progress of school improvement (Washington State Board of Education, 2020) and incorporating local values and beliefs into learning processes (Education Review Office of New Zealand, 2022). Later, indicators closely related to specific standards of education relevant to a particular area are also excluded from the discussion. The study also considers the eight components of the Indonesian na - tional education standards. Based on the latest documents of education stand - ards in Indonesia, the eight Standar Nasional Pendidikan (SNP) [Standards of National Education] in Indonesia are: (1) the standard of school graduate com - petency, (2) the standard of content, (3) the standard of process, (4) the stand - ard of education assessment, (5) the standard of educational personnel, (6) the standard of facility and infrastructure, (7) the standard of management, and (8) the standard of financing (Government of Indonesia, 2022). c e p s Journal 13 Below is how the SNP is accommodated into the recommended do - mains of the School Improvement Framework for Indonesia (SIFI). Table 5 SNP accommodation in the School Improvement Framework for Indonesia (SIFI) domain recommendations Domains in the SIFI Related SNP Teaching and Learning – Standard of content – Standard of process Leadership and Management – Standard of management – Standard of financing Assessment – Standard of school graduate competency – Standard of education assessment Community and Culture – Standard of educational personnel – Standard of facility and infrastructure Figure 2 School Improvement Framework for Indonesia (SIFI) school improvement framework for indonesia 14 Figure 2 illustrates how the School Improvement Framework for Indone- sia (SIFI) integrates key domains to enhance the quality of education within the Indonesian context. All of the related subdomains contribute to the over - all progress of school improvement and are monitored through data collected from these processes. Each domain functions not in isolation but in conjunc - tion with others, contributing collectively to the school improvement process, as demonstrated by the data gathered from the subdomains. Below is an elabo - ration of each part of the domain and the incorporated data that ties all of the domains and subdomains into one framework of school improvement. Teaching and Learning The teaching and learning domain focuses on improving the quality of teaching and learning in class. The related subdomains in the documents dis - cuss various topics but can be grouped into three categories: teacher profession - alism, classroom instructions and student learning. Teacher professionalism pertains to the inspiring practices of teachers (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, 2014), classroom instructions prioritise excellent teaching methods (OECD, 2020), and student learning underscores stimulating learn - ing processes (Masters & Australian Council for Educational Research, 2010). Teaching and learning are at the heart of school improvement. This do - main covers teaching and learning activities and how teachers prepare their pro - fessional capabilities to conduct stimulating teaching and inspire students. T each - ers who are allowed to conduct personal development training may positively impact overall school improvement plans (Gericke & Torbjörnsson, 2022). In the Indonesian context, the most accessible activity related to this is participating in a subject-teacher association. This kind of association has been promoted since 2003 through law 20/2003 on the national education system; however, to date, there is no official data regarding the overall number of teachers involved in such activities, despite sporadic research about the impact of associations on teachers’ professional development (Pajar et al., 2023; Sumiyani, 2023). The teaching and learning domain encompasses some subdomains, as previously outlined in categories, including inspiring teachers, excellent teach - ing practices and stimulating learning experiences. The subdomain inspiring teachers encompasses teachers’ capabilities to conduct teaching and learning activities professionally. Teachers need relevant and updated knowledge and skills to do this. Moreover, they also need to con - duct collaborative teaching activities to learn from one another (Greatbatch & Tate, 2019). c e p s Journal 15 Excellent teaching focuses on how teachers master the content of the curriculum. The ability to deliver the curriculum effectively is a direct outcome of this mastery, because: The school has a coherent, sequenced plan for curriculum delivery that ensures consistent teaching and learning expectations and an apparent reference for monitoring learning across the year levels. The plan, within which evidence-based teaching practices are embedded and to which assessment and reporting procedures are aligned, has been developed and refined collaboratively to provide a shared vision for curriculum practice. This plan is shared with parents and caregivers . (Masters & Australian Council for Educational Research, 2010, p. 11) . Therefore, teachers with relevant and updated knowledge and skills are expected to interpret the curriculum in their classroom in order to create meaningful, differentiated learning to accommodate different learning needs (NSW Government, 2023). These diverse learning needs also entail meticulous considerations, notably concerning managing various types of student literacy behaviours (Masters & Australian Council for Educational Research, 2010). Stimulating learning points towards the notion that the teacher is the primary actor. In order to achieve stimulated learning, teachers need to have high expectations of what their students can learn. Students can participate in collaborative and inspiring learning through authentic, relevant and meaning - ful inquiry processes. Furthermore, if feasible, teachers possess the capacity to cultivate learning environments that are intellectually stimulating, conducive to comfort and characterised by civility, and that promote healthfulness (Masters & Australian Council for Educational Research, 2010). As mentioned in the introduction, national exams once represented a measure of teaching and learning quality within the Indonesian educational landscape. With the cessation of national exams, there is no formal indicator of teaching and learning quality. Many parents have transitioned to regarding the rate of student admissions into higher education institutions as an immedi - ate indicator of quality education (Salfiah et al., 2022; Thoyyibah et al., 2022). Nevertheless, this metric cannot be uniformly applied to elementary and junior high schools, given the government’s elimination of the elite school designation subsequent to the adoption of the zoning policy in 2017 (Wahidi, 2022). This indicates that the portrayal of teaching and learning quality in Indonesia still predominately focuses on students’ output rather than optimising the compo - nents integral to teaching and learning. Conversely, the results of the present research advocate for a shift in school improvement within the teaching and school improvement framework for indonesia 16 learning domain towards enhancing these critical components, which entails prioritising teachers who inspire, deliver exceptional learning experiences and encourage learning stimulation. Focusing on outcomes to capture the actual quality of learning is not inherently problematic, but this perspective is more aligned with school effec - tiveness than school improvement. School effectiveness is the ability of a school to perform its functions efficiently (Cheng, 2022). School functions relate to the output and outcomes of school graduates (Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools, 2021). Schools that focus on school effectiveness by measuring their output through student attainment in certain assessments are prone to fall into teaching-to-the-test routines (Bellei et al., 2020). The recommendation is therefore for schools not to confine themselves to this perspective of school ef - fectiveness. Schools should dare to take a step forward and engage in school im - provement. In other words, the school’s role must be broadened beyond merely considering the output and outcome aspects of school effectiveness; it should encompass optimising the elements of teaching and learning as the manifesta - tion of school improvement implementation. Leadership and Management The school principal is responsible for providing leadership and direc - tion for the school improvement plans and programmes. Thus, principals must have specific skills and knowledge to ensure that all school stakeholders are ready to contribute to the school improvement plans (Brion, 2020; Y eigh et al., 2019). Liljenberg and Wrethander (2023) even argue the importance of training practice for school principals as a crucial component in school improvement programmes, in order to ensure that principals are equipped for schools to start embracing any school improvement plans. In this framework, the concepts of leadership and management are articu - lated through three subdomains: strategic leadership (Evans et al., 2012; Northern Territory Government, 2016), resourceful and effective management (Minnesota Department of Education, 2022; V ermont Agency of Education, 2020), and trans - parent and organised administration (Evans et al., 2012; V ermont Agency of Edu - cation, 2020). Strategic leadership incorporates “substantive decision-making responsibilities, beyond the interpersonal and relational aspects usually associ - ated with leadership” (Finkelstein et al., 2009, p. 17). In the Indonesian context, strategic leadership is influenced by the form of the school, as regular schools are under the management of the MOE while madrasahs (religious schools) are un - der the management of the MORA. The principal of a madrasah must be able to c e p s Journal 17 differentiate the policy and regulations in the context of the MOE and the MORA, as they are structurally under the MORA but also required to implement certain policies issued by the MOE. On the other hand, principals of regular schools only need to consider the policy released by the MOE. The next subdomain is resourceful and effective management. In their report, the MOE stated that only 25% of elementary schools and 40% of high schools have suitable conditions to support learning, despite the increased budget for education (Ulya & Djumena, 2020). Principals, teachers and administrations should maximise the available resources to meet education standards and ex - pectations. This subdomain helps schools to pay attention to their facilities and infrastructure, and to plan improvement in order to achieve relevant progress towards meeting the expected goals set by the school rather than the standards. It is essential to recognise that the fulfilment of standards and the expec - tations outlined above should not serve as the foundation for claims regarding school improvement. The approach to resources must be stratified, suggest - ing that the development of school resources adheres to the distinct phases of achievement particular to the school (Vermont Agency of Education, 2020). Given that each school possesses unique phase achievements, the starting points for school improvement in this context may vary accordingly. A notable area for improvement within the Indonesian educational frame - work is the propensity for utilising predetermined standards and expectations as definitive benchmarks for evaluating school accomplishments. This approach leads schools to prioritise attaining these benchmarks, often needing to account for their unique stages of development. Furthermore, upon reaching these estab - lished standards, schools may perceive themselves as having fulfilled their objec - tives, thus negating the impetus for ongoing enhancement and progress. The last subdomain of the Leadership and Management domain is transparent and organised administration. Management and administration concerning schools as an organisation are mentioned in the selected docu - ments (Education Review Office of New Zealand, 2022; Minnesota Department of Education, 2022; Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015). In this context, management and administration concern not only data collection and distributed resource management (Koh et al., 2023), but also actively contribute to discussions on planning school improvement programmes (Brion, 2020). Transparency is discussed in the SIFI due to Indonesia’s school op - erational assistance fund policy. Principals are expected to involve teachers, parents and staff in planning and reporting on the disbursement of the fund (Rachmawati, 2023; Winaya et al., 2022). However, there needs to be a specific description of how this should be conducted. school improvement framework for indonesia 18 Assessment Only the School Improvement Tool from Australia and Minnesota’s Multi-Tiered System of Support Framework from the USA discuss assessment with regard to meeting a standardised assessment expectation (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2023; Minnesota Department of Education, 2022). Other documents discuss various functions of assessment: to help de - velop differentiated learning (Ministry of Education of Canada, 2013), to im - prove learning (OECD, 2020; University of California, 2021), and to understand learning needs (Reezigt & Creemers, 2005; Stoll et al., 2009). In the Indonesian context, assessment is a compliance indicator in the school accreditation process (Susetyo et al., 2022). One data source for this is the Rapor Pendidikan [Educational Report], which is provided annually for schools under the MOE based on their national assessment results (Nurkolis et al., 2022). Later, it is used to develop planning and programming (Sudadio et al., 2023). National Assessment is a sampling assessment to measure the overall quality of education in a given school. Madrasahs under the MORA do not have such a report, even though they implement National Assessment. Thus, we recommend using teachers’ classroom assessment as one subdomain of the assessment domain. Assessment plays a vital role in school improvement plans; it is an in - dicator of the reason an improvement needs to be made. A successful school improvement plan will reflect increased assessment attainment (Vangronigen & Meyers, 2020). On the other hand, a poor assessment result indicates the need for quality improvement. The present research identifies three subdomains that are particularly relevant to the educational context of Indonesia: meaningful assessment, con - structive feedback and comprehensive assessment data. Meaningful assessment encompasses the idea that every assessment must serve a purpose, regardless of the administrator. Well-designed assessments measure how well students meet the expected standards, but they also help teachers plan interventions to improve learning attainment (Danielson, 2002) and provide data to support continuous learning improvement (Summers, 2023). In the Indonesian context, there are still emerging problems with teachers’ ability to develop valid and re - liable assessments, especially since the latest curriculum, Kurikulum Merdeka, requires that assessments encourage higher-order thinking (Kusumaningrum & Abduh, 2022; Saragih & Nasution, 2019). The second subdomain is constructive feedback. The selected docu - ments discuss and encourage constructive feedback (Ministry of Education of c e p s Journal 19 Canada, 2013; Office of School Support and Improvement, 2015; School Im - provement Design Unit, 2022). Feedback is crucial because it signifies a positive relationship between teachers and students within the learning environment. In this context, the School Effectiveness Framework of the Ministry of Educa - tion of Canada (2013) states: The power of positive teacher-student relationships is critical for learn - ing to occur. This relationship involves showing students that the teacher cares for their learning as a student, can see their perspective, and com - municate it back to them so they have valuable feedback to self-assess, feel safe, and learn to understand others and the content with the same interest and concern. (p. 25) Empirically, students learn more through constructive feedback (Djou et al., 2023; Misbah, 2022; Wang et al., 2019). This subdomain targets teachers’ abil - ity to provide constructive feedback and encourage appreciation when relevant. Schools need to take a role in this process, as it reinforces expected behaviour necessary for school improvement. The third subdomain is comprehensive assessment data. Discussion about using data to direct classroom instruction is present in some educational settings (Summers, 2023; W alte et al., 2022). Indonesia has adopted the policy of the Education Report ( Rapor Pendidikan), whereby the MOE gathers all of the relevant data about the school in one platform. The data include the results of the National Assessment and various national surveys, such as the inclusiveness and diversity indexes. Aside from this, teachers also need to gather the neces - sary data from classroom interaction and assessment in order to monitor the progress of school improvement initiatives. Community and Culture The last domain proposed in the School Improvement Framework for Indonesia is community and culture, which identifies continuous professional development, a positive school culture and an engaged community. Teachers and administrators must continuously develop professional - ism to support quality improvement (Murwaningsih et al., 2022). Exceptional support must be allocated through budgeting or encouragement to join rel - evant training or workshops. This subdomain prompts schools to plan continu - ous professional development programmes for teachers and administrators. Continuously developing professionalism would undoubtedly be in vain without the support of a positive school culture, which is the second subdomain. school improvement framework for indonesia 20 This subdomain encompasses a myriad of conditions to support learning, from the common belief that students can learn successfully (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2023; Ministry of Education of Canada, 2013) and the support to develop routines of expected behaviours (Texas Education Agency, 2019), to preserving local culture (Education Review Office of New Zealand, 2022). This subdomain asks schools to own their culture aligning with their vision and mission. Relevant school culture helps create a favourable environ - ment to support learning (Rony, 2021; Sukadari, 2020) and nurture appropriate characters (Samsiniwati, 2022). The final subdomain in the domain of Community and Culture is en - gaged community. Community in this context refers to parents and society, as well as policymakers in government offices, all of whom play an essential role in the success of school improvement programmes. In Indonesia, the community’s involvement in school has been officially acknowledged since 2016, with Ministry Regulation No. 75/2016 (Kemdikbud, 2016), through the Komite Sekolah [School Committee], whose members are parents and local authorities. However, these initiatives have experienced mixed responses, from acknowledging that this pro - vides opportunities for parents to better support education (Fitriani & Istary - atiningtias, 2020), to recent emerging concerns, such as the problem of control (Sadewa & Yuniningsih, 2016). Bohanon et al. (2021) recommend encouraging initiatives to develop awareness that school improvement is an intertwining pro - cess in which all stakeholders must participate and improve. Parent involvement helps increase learning motivation (OECD, 2020). Stakeholder engagement in school activities also helps strengthen school culture (Minnesota Department of Education, 2022), while stakeholder partnership is expected to boost student well-being and achievement (Ministry of Education of Canada, 2013). The role of data Data play an essential role in the School Improvement Framework for In- donesia, as they are used as a baseline during planning and a means to monitor the progress of school improvement programme implementations (Greatbatch & Tate, 2019), while also providing information for the evaluation processes. Data can range from qualitative to quantitative. All data must be collected and man - aged well in order to document the progress of school improvement programmes. Data from standardised tests or assessments can be an excellent measure of im - provement (Heffernan, 2018). In the Indonesian context, where standardised test results are unavailable, schools can use classroom data to picture the progress of improvement in teaching and learning processes. Data are also used to develop c e p s Journal 21 relevant programmes. Classroom assessment data that show no progress in at - tainment may suggest the need for an intervention, which can be undertaken following regular classroom supervision. When this data is prepared with a more detailed explanation and shows, for example, that the presumed cause is a lack of certain teaching media, the school may allocate funding to procuring teaching media in its next cycle of school improvement plans. School improvement is an ongoing process that requires diligent data collection in order to observe the attainment within the duration of implemen - tation. From their research across 20 nations, Barber et al. (2010) argue that it takes six years to see an observable improvement in quality at schools with proper intervention. In order to move from fair to good quality, they recom - mend establishing the foundations of data gathering, organisation, finances and pedagogy. Based on this, the role of data becomes crucial. The research agrees that the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unsuitable for school improvement plans. Every school should develop its context for improvement and implement necessary interventions until improvement can be seen. From a data-oriented perspective, each educational institution inher - ently possesses distinct baseline metrics determined by its unique dataset. It is imperative for each institution to optimally utilise this data, enabling a com - prehensive depiction of the institution’s developmental trajectory. In addition, Vangronigen and Meyers (2020) suggest that low-performing schools conduct school improvement cycles in shorter lengths, presumably per semester, in or - der to provide opportunities to alter or adjust initial plans. However, Meyers et al. (2023) note the extra burden placed on the principal to supervise and de - velop plans in time before the following planning cycle. In order to accomplish this, schools should ideally refer to their institutional data. Generally, in order to capture school performance well, we need to pro - vide an array of quality measurements, as using just one approach, whether quantitative or qualitative, will not be sufficient to picture the overall progress occurring at schools (Scottish Government, 2022). The result of this measure - ment becomes the data that will capture the progress of the improvement. The explicit recommendation of the present analysis for education prac - titioners is that achieving school improvement cannot rely solely on school ef - fectiveness data, which is prone to bias due to the many inequalities that impact schools’ outputs and outcomes (Scherer & Nilsen, 2019); nor can it rely solely on quality assurance data through accreditation per se, where there is no room for further improvement once the predetermined standards are met. Through the SIFI, practitioners can clearly map data based on domains and subdomains. Furthermore, this data mapping can provide a projection of school improvement framework for indonesia 22 the school’ s future development direction. The SIFI positions data as something valuable that can play a crucial role in determining the direction of a school’s development. In other words, the SIFI can help practitioners see data as dy - namic, not static. Every piece of data can serve as a reference for continuous progressivity and not merely as a tool to meet established standards that then lose their role and meaning. Conclusion School improvement processes involve more than merely striving to meet educational standards. For schools facing significant quality challenges, school improvement programmes must be carefully identified to ensure that all aspects of educational management receive balanced attention. These pro - grammes are then designed and developed according to the school’s capacity. For schools that already have a high level of quality, school improvement pro - grammes are no longer aimed at achieving standards that have already been surpassed, but rather at realising the school’s vision and mission. The School Improvement Framework for Indonesia offers a structured approach for schools to plan quality improvement, not only to meet the national education stand - ards, but to go beyond them. This framework comprises four domains: Teach - ing and Learning, Leadership and Management, Assessment, and Community and Culture. Each domain is further delineated into three subdomains to pro - vide a comprehensive basis for data collection and implementing improvement strategies in daily school operations. The next phase of research will focus on formulating achievement indi - cators for each of the established subdomains. These subdomains are expected to strengthen the position of the SIFI as an empirically-based framework for school improvement programmes in Indonesia. Furthermore, additional re - search is essential to empirically validate the SIFI as an integral component of programme planning within the school context in Indonesia. c e p s Journal 23 References ACT Department of Education and Training. (2009). School improvement framework. https://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/64298/School_Improvement_Framework.pdf Alexander, N. A. (2013). Policy analysis for educational leaders: A step-by-step approach. Pearson. Annur, C. M. (2023, March 8). Jumlah Sekolah di Indonesia Hampir 400 Ribu Unit pada Tahun Ajaran 2022/2023 [The number of schools in Indonesia reached nearly 400 thousand units in the 2022/2023 academic year]. Databoks. https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2023/03/08/jumlah-sekolah-di-indonesia-hampir- 400-ribu-unit-pada-tahun-ajaran-20222023 Askell-Williams, H., & Koh, G. A. (2020). Enhancing the sustainability of school improvement initia - tives. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(4), 660–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1767657 Australian Council for Educational Research. (2023). School improvement tool. https://doi.org/10.37517/978-1-74286-700-7 Australian Department of Education. (2010). School performance improvement frameworks. https://www.education.gov.au/download/2261/school-performance-improvement-frameworks- report/3068/document/pdf Australian Department of Education. (2014). School performance improvement frameworks report. https://www.education.gov.au/teaching-and-school-leadership/resources/school-performance- improvement-frameworks-report Bandur, A. (2018). Stakeholders’ responses to school-based management in Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Management , 32(6), 1082–1098. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2017-0191 Bandur, A., Hamsal, M., & Furinto, A. (2022). 21st century experiences in the development of school- based management policy and practices in Indonesia. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 21(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-021-09293-x Barber, M., Chijioke, C., & Mourshed, M. (2010, November 1). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/how-the-worlds-most-improved- school-systems-keep-getting-better Bellei, C., Morawietz, L., Valenzuela, J. P ., & Vanni, X. (2020). Effective schools 10 years on: Factors and processes enabling the sustainability of school effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(2), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1652191 Bohanon, H. S., Wu, M.-J., Kushki, A., LeVesseur, C., Harms, A., Vera, E., Carlson-Sanei, J., & Shriberg, D. (2021). The role of school improvement planning in the implementation of MTSS in secondary schools. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(3), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1908215 Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Martyn-St James, M., & Booth, A. (2022). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (3rd edition). SAGE. school improvement framework for indonesia 24 Brion, C. (2020). Leading change for school improvement: A case study. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 11(1). Budiharso, T., & Tarman, B. (2020). Improving quality education through better working conditions of academic institutes. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies , 7(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/306 Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2014). School improvement frameworks: The evidence base. New South Wales Department of Education and Communities. https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/about-us/educational-data/cese/2014- school-improvement-frameworks-the-evidence-base.pdf Cheng, Y . C. (2022). School effectiveness and school-based management: A mechanism for development second edition (2nd edition). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003267980 Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Associa - tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Department for Education, Children and Y oung People. (2022, June 3). Our approach to school im- provement. Tasmanian Government, Department for Education, Children and Y oung People. https://www.decyp.tas.gov.au/about-us/strategies-and-frameworks/our-approach-to-school-im - provement/ Dimmock, C. (2002). School design: A classificatory framework for a 21st-century approach to school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(2), 137–162. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.13.2.137.3434 Djou, F., Saleh, S. E., Mahmud, M., Ilato, R., & Maruwae, A. (2023). Pengaruh pemberian umpan ba - lik (feedback) guru terhadap aktivitas belajar siswa [The effect of teacher feedback on students’ learn - ing activities]. Journal on Teacher Education , 5(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.31004/jote.v5i1.22024 Education Review Office of New Zealand. (2022). Te Ara Huarau—School improvement framework. https://ero.govt.nz/how-ero-reviews/how-ero-reviews-schoolskura-english-medium/te-ara-huarau- the-new-approach-to-evaluation/school-improvement-framework Evans, L., Thornton, B., & Usinger, J. (2012). Theoretical frameworks to guide school improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 96(2), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636512444714 Finaka, A. W . (2023). Berapa Jumlah Sekolah di Indonesia 2023? [How many schools are there in Indonesia in 2023?]. Indonesia baik.id. https://indonesiabaik.id/infografis/berapa-jumlah-sekolah-di-indonesia-2023 Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella Jr., A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press, Inc. Fitriani, S., & Istaryatiningtias, I. (2020). Promoting child-friendly school model through school committee as parents’ participation. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) , 9(4), 1025–1034. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20615 Flavian, H. (Ed.). (2020). From pedagogy to quality assurance in education: An international perspec- tive (1st edition). Emerald Publishing Limited. Flemming, K., Booth, A., Garside, R., Tunçalp, Ö., & Noyes, J. (2019). Qualitative evidence synthesis c e p s Journal 25 for complex interventions and guideline development: Clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Global Health , 4(Suppl 1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000882 Forde, C., & Torrance, D. (2021). Leadership at all levels: System alignment through empowerment in Scottish education? School Leadership & Management, 41(1–2), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1825372 Garira, E. (2020). A proposed unified conceptual framework for quality of education in schools. SAGE Open, 10(1), Article 215824401989944. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899445 Gericke, N., & Torbjörnsson, T. (2022). Identifying capital for school improvement: Recommenda - tions for a whole school approach to ESD implementation. Environmental Education Research, 28(6), 803–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2045256 Government of Indonesia. (2003). UU Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional [Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System]. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/43920/uu-no-20-tahun-2003 Government of Indonesia. (2004). UU no. 32/2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah [Law Number 32 of 2004 Concerning Regional Government]. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/40768/uu-no-32-tahun-2004 Government of Indonesia. (2022). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 4 tahun 2022 tentang Perubahan Atas Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 57 Tahun 2021 tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan [Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2022 on Amendments to Government Regulation Number 57 of 2021 on the National Education Standards]. https://jdih.kemdikbud.go.id/detail_peraturan?main=2978 Greatbatch, D., & Tate, S. (2019). School improvement systems in high performing countries. Govern - ment of the United Kingdom, Department for Education. Grützmacher, L., Holzer, J., Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., & Prenzel, M. (2023). The stimulation of school improvement processes: The orientation of development perspectives. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 34(4), 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2023.2246950 Hayudiyani, M., Supriyanto, A., & Timan, A. (2020). Manajemen peningkatan mutu pendidikan melalui pengembangan budaya lokal [Management of educational quality improvement through local culture development]. JAMP: Jurnal Administrasi Dan Manajemen Pendidikan , 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.17977/um027v3i12020p102 Heck, R. H. (2004). Studying educational and social policy: Theoretical concepts and research methods. L. Erlbaum Associates. Heffernan, A. (2018). The principal and school improvement: Theorising discourse, policy, and practice . Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1495-7 Hopkins, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). The past, present and future of school improvement: Towards the third age. British Educational Research Journal , 27(4), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120071461 Idris, A., Trisnamansyah, S., & Wasliman, I. (2022). Implementation of the internal quality assurance system in improving school quality. Munaddhomah, 3(1), 27–34. school improvement framework for indonesia 26 https://doi.org/10.31538/munaddhomah.v3i1.96 Institute for Educational Research. (2001). A framework for effective school improvement. Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen, Netherlands. https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/projects/files/SOE/SOE2972027/70595591-6_en.pdf Iswan, Suradika, A., Priharta, A., Bahar, H., & Miyati, E. (2021). The influence of school-based management implementation on the improvement of education quality in primary schools. Journal of Hunan University, 48(4), 51–62. Kemdikbud. (2016). Permendikbud 75 Tahun 2016 Tentang Komite Sekolah [Ministerial Regulation of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia Number 75 of 2016 Concerning School Committees]. https://jdih.kemdikbud.go.id/detail_peraturan?main=1586 Kemdikbud. (2021). Surat Edaran (SE) Mendikbud Nomor 1 Tahun 2021 tentang Peniadaan Ujian Nasional dan Ujian Kesetaraan serta Pelaksanaan Ujian Sekolah dalam Masa Darurat Penyebaran Corona Virus Disease (Covid-19) [Circular Letter of the Minister of Education and Culture Number 1 of 2021 on the Elimination of the National Examination and Equivalency Examination, and the Imple- mentation of School Examinations during the Emergency Period of Corona Virus Disease (Covid-19) Dissemination]. https://pauddikdasmen.kemdikbud.go.id/bukuelektronik/public/assets/img/flipbook/SE_Mendik - bud_Nomor_1_Tahun_2021_1702bd58c6_8b9e7cdf5c.pdf Kemenag. (2024). Dashboard EMIS. http://infopublik-emis.kemenag.go.id/?ta=2023%2F2024+Genap Kemendikbudristek. (2022). Permendikbudristek RI No 9 Tahun 2022 tentang Evaluasi Sistem Pendidi- kan oleh Pemerintah Pusat Dan Pemerintah Daerah terhadap Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, Pendidikan Dasar, dan Pendidikan Menengah [Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia Number 9 of 2022 on the Evaluation of the Education System by the Central Government and Regional Governments for Early Childhood Education, Basic Education, and Secondary Education]. https://jdih.kemdikbud.go.id/sjdih/siperpu/dokumen/salinan/salinan_20220329_160447_Final%20 JDIH%20Salinan%20Permendikbudristek%20No%209%20Tahun%202022%20ttg%20Evaluasi%20 Sisdik.pdf Koh, G. A., Askell-Williams, H., & Barr, S. (2023). Sustaining school improvement initiatives: Advice from educational leaders. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 34(3), 298–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2023.2190130 Kusumaningrum, P . D., & Abduh, M. (2022). Analisis kesiapan guru sekolah dasar dalam pelaksan - aan asesmen nasional [Analysis of primary school teachers’ readiness in implementing the National Assessment.]. Jurnal Basicedu , 6(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.31004/basicedu.v6i3.2912 Leng, D. (2019, August 4). Educational reform – Scottish style! ACEReSearch. https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference/RC2019/4august/3 Lewisham Learning. (2024). Lewisham Learning School Improvement Framework 2024-25. Lewisham Learning. https://schoolsservices.lewisham.gov.uk/Page/10080 Liljenberg, M., & Wrethander, M. (2023). Leadership for school improvement – linking learning to c e p s Journal 27 leading over time. Professional Development in Education, 49(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1752288 Loock, C. F., & Scherman, V . (2020). Educational assessment in a time of reform: Standards and stand- ard setting for excellence in education. Routledge. Mackey, E. G. & Alabama State Superintendent of Education. (2020). The Alabama coaching frame- work. CC Network. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED628962.pdf Mareza, L., Mustadi, A., Dewi, D. S. E., Mumpuniarti, M., & Suwarjo, S. (2024). Arts education for children with disabilities: A systematic literature review. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal , Article 1667. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1667 Marpaung, F. N., Nadeak, B., & Naibaho, L. (2023). Teknik peningkatan mutu pendidikan [Tech - niques for improving education quality]. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Konseling (JPDK) , 5(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.31004/jpdk.v5i1.11614 Masters, G. N. & Australian Council for Educational Research. (2010). Teaching and learning school improvement framework. Department of Education and Training of State of Queensland. https://research.acer.edu.au/monitoring_learning/16/ Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools. (2021). School effectiveness in a Catholic school. Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools Ltd. https://www.macs.vic.edu.au/CatholicEducationMelbourne/media/Documentation/HoH%20Docu - ments/HoH-School-Effectiveness.pdf Meyers, C., Aaron, T., Hitt, D. H., & VanGronigen, B. (2023). Promises and pitfalls: Principals using short-cycle school improvement plans to optimize organizational change. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(4), 846–862. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2022-0256 Ministry of Education of Ontario. (2013). School effectiveness framework: A support for school im- provement and student success. https://www.ontario.ca/page/k-12-school-effectiveness-framework-support-school-improvement- and-student-success Minnesota Department of Education. (2022). Minnesota multi-tiered system of supports (MnMTSS). https://education.mn.gov/mde/dse/mtss/ Misbah, S. (2022). Penerapan metode umpan balik (feed back partner) untuk meningkatkan prestasi belajar siswa pada mata pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia materi struktur dan kebahasaan teks anekdot kelas X IPS-2 SMAN 4 Kota Bima semester 1 tahun pelajaran 2020/2021 [The implementation of the feedback method (feedback partner) to improve student learning achievement in the Indonesian lan - guage subject, specifically on the structure and linguistic aspects of anecdotal texts, for class X IPS-2 at SMAN 4 Kota Bima during the first semester of the 2020/2021 academic year]. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran Indonesia (JPPI) , 2(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.53299/jppi.v2i2.219 Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P ., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 Murwaningsih, T., Akbarini, N. R., Fauziah, M., & Rapih, S. (2022). Teachers’ continuous profes - school improvement framework for indonesia 28 sional development: Current implementation, problems, and needs in Indonesia. In N. A. Drajati, & K. A. Putra (Eds.), Teacher education and teacher professional development in the Covid-19 turn (pp. 159–165). Routledge. Nahar, G., Urick, A., Wescoup, S. M., Jang, C. S., Cascio, C. J., & Unsicker-Durham, S. K. (2022). A framework for cohesive school improvement: Integrating school improvement plans, evidence use, and resources. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 19(3), 32–51. Nielsen, H. D. (1998). Reforms to teacher education in Indonesia: Does more mean better? Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 18(2), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0218879980180203 Nordholm, D., & Adolfsson, C.-H. (2023). Big ideas, soft governance: Managing large-scale school improvement at the national agency level in Sweden. International Journal of Educational Manage - ment, 38(1), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2023-0219 Northern Territory Government. (2016, January 25). Accountability and performance improvement framework. Northern Territory Government of Australia, Department of Education and Training. https://education.nt.gov.au. https://education.nt.gov.au/statistics-research-and-strategies/accounta - bility-and-performance-improvement-framework NSW Government. (2023, November 15). School improvement and excellence. New South Wales Department of Education. https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/strategies-and-reports/school-excellence-and-accountability/ school-excellence-in-action/school-improvement-and-excellence.html Nurkolis, Muhdi, & Yuliejantiningsih, Y . (2022). Akuntabilitas pendidikan Di Kabupaten Kendal berbasis Rapor Pendidikan [Education accountability in Kendal Regency based on the Education Report Card]. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Hasil Penelitian Dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat (SNHP), 3, 1–21. OECD. (2020). Developing a school evaluation framework to drive school improvement (OECD Educa - tion Policy Perspectives 26; OECD Education Policy Perspectives, Vol. 26). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/60b471de-en Office of School Support and Improvement. (2015). Nine essential elements: A framework for continu- ous school improvement. Oklahoma State Department of Education. https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/9EE%20Booklet%202021%20%281%29.pdf Pajar, A. M., Andra, V ., & Satrisno, H. (2023). Th e role of MGMP in developing professional compe- The role of MGMP in developing professional compe - tence of Indonesian language teachers. Jadila: Journal of Development and Innovation in Language and Literature Education, 3(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.52690/jadila.v3i2.355 Pradhan, M., Suryadarma, D., Beatty, A., Wong, M., Alishjabana, A., Gaduh, A., & Prama Artha, R. (2014). Improving educational quality through enhancing community participation: Results from a randomized field experiment in Indonesia. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 6(2), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1862143 Rachmawati, U. (2023). Penerapan transparansi dan akuntabilitas pengelolaan dana BOS dalam program RKAS di SDN Made 1 Surabaya [Implementation of transparency and accountability in BOS fund man - agement within the RKAS Program at SDN Made 1 Surabaya]. Jurnal Jendela Pendidikan , 3(2), 212–219. c e p s Journal 29 Reezigt, G. J., & Creemers, B. P . M. (2005). A comprehensive framework for effective school improve - ment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500235200 Rony. (2021). Urgensi Manajemen Budaya Organisasi Sekolah Terhadap Pembentukan Karakter Peserta Didik [The urgency of school organisational culture management against character building students]. Tafkir: Interdisciplinary Journal of Islamic Education , 2(1), 98–121. Rosa, M. J., Cardoso, S., & Videira, P . (2020). Is accreditation ‘on the right track’? The views of Portu - guese academics. Tertiary Education and Management, 26(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09048-7 Sadewa, E. Y ., & Yuniningsih, T. (2016). Efektivitas peran komite sekolah di SD Negeri 1 Kebumen Kecamatan Sukorejo Kabupaten Kendal [Effectiveness of the role of the school committee at SD Negeri 1 Kebumen, Sukorejo Subdistrict, Kendal Regency]. Journal of Public Policy and Management Review, 5(2), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.14710/jppmr.v5i2.11077 Salfiah, S., Intani, Q., Andini, S., & Astuti, A. P . (2022). Analisis Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kepu- Analisis Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kepu - tusan Orang Tua dalam Memilih Sekolah SD dan SMP untuk Anak pada Masa Pandemi Covid-19 [Analysis of factors affecting parental decisions in choosing elementary and junior high schools for children during the Covid-19 pandemic]. Prosiding seminar Nasional UNIMUS, 5, 766–776. https://prosiding.unimus.ac.id/index.php/semnas/article/download/1240/1241 Samsiniwati, B. Y . (2022). Student management in building a culture of discipline junior high school students in Lombok. At-Tadbir: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam , 2(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.51700/attadbir.v2i2.481 Saragih, M., & Nasution, H. S. (2019). Peningkatan kualitas pembelajaran dan penilaian berbasis HOTS [Improving the quality of learning and assessment based on HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills)]. Jurnal PRODIKMAS , 4(1), Article 1. Scherer, R., & Nilsen, T. (2019). Closing the gaps? Differential effectiveness and accountability as a road to school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(3), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1623450 Schildkamp, K. (2019). Data-based decision-making for school improvement: Research insights and gaps. Educational Research, 61(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1625716 School Improvement Design Unit. (2022). Framework for improving student outcomes (FISO 2.0): Policy. The Department of Education of Victoria, Australia. https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/fiso/undefined Scottish Government. (2022). National improvement framework (NIF). http://www.gov.scot/policies/schools/national-improvement-framework/ Siahaan, A., Akmalia, R., Ray, A. U. M., Sembiring, A. W ., & Yunita, E. (2023). Upaya meningkatan mutu pendidikan di Indonesia [Efforts to improve the quality of education in Indonesia]. Journal on Education, 5(3), 6933–6941. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v5i3.1480 Stoll, L., Creemers, B. P . M., & Reezigt, G. (2009). Effective school improvement: Similarities and differences in improvement in eight European countries. In A. Harris, J. Hageman Chrispeels (Eds.), school improvement framework for indonesia 30 Improving Schools and educational systems (pp. 90-106). Routledge. Sudadio, Shabatini, D. N., Firmansyah, F., Farleni, F., & Hidayatullah. (2023). Profile of school quality based on quality reports in elementary schools in Banten province. Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Studies, 06(09), 4406–4413. https://doi.org/10.47191/jefms/v6-i9-29 Sukadari. (2020). Peranan budaya sekolah dalam meningkatkan mutu pendidikan [The role of school culture in improving education quality]. Exponential (Education for exceptional children) Jurnal Pendidikan Luar Biasa, 1(1), Article 1. Sumintono, B., Said, H., & Mislan, N. (2012). Constraints and improvement: A case study of the Indonesia’s international standard school in improving its capacity building. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 6(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v6i1.187 Sumintono, B., Subekti, N. B., Mislan, N., Said, H., & Mohd Tahir, L. (2014). In search of the excellent school: A case study of an Indonesian international standard school in improving its capacity build - ing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0130-9 Sumiyani. (2023). The impact of teacher’s involvement in MGMP on the teachers’ performance. PPSDP International Journal of Education , 2(2), 444–448. https://doi.org/10.59175/pijed.v2i2.146 Summers, D. (2023). Teachers’ use of assessment data to improve student achievement. Literature Reviews in Education and Human Services, 2(2), 21–49. Susetyo, B., Soetantyo, S. P ., Sayuti, M., & Nur, D. (2022). The innovation and the transformation of Indonesian schools accreditation management system. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE) , 4(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v4i2.17113 Texas Education Agency. (2019). Effective schools framework. https://texasesf.org/framework/ Thoyyibah, K., Adhimah, D. R., & lukitasari, R. D. (2022). Analisis Faktor Pertimbangan Orang Tua dalam Memilihkan Sekolah [Analysis of factors considered by parents in choosing a school]. Prosid- ing Seminar Nasional UNIMUS, 5, 702–725. https://prosiding.unimus.ac.id/index.php/semnas/article/download/1240/1241 Ulya, F. N., & Djumena, E. (2020, June 24). Infrastruktur Sekolah di Indonesia Dianggap Kurang, Ini Penyebabnya Menurut Bank Dunia [School infrastructure in Indonesia is considered insufficient, here’s why according to the World Bank]. KOMPAS.com. https://money.kompas.com/read/2020/06/24/183500426/infrastruktur-sekolah-di-indonesia-diang - gap-kurang-ini-penyebabnya-menurut University of California. (2021). New directions for school improvement policy. Center for MH in Schools & Student/Learning Supports. https://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/policynd.pdf Unterman, R., Corrin, W ., & Price, M. (2023). Comprehensive high school reform strategies. MDRC. https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/comprehensive-high-school-reform-strategies/file-full Vangronigen, B. A., & Meyers, C. V . (2020). Short-cycle school improvement planning as a lever to launch school turnaround: A descriptive analysis of plans. Teachers College Record, 122(5), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200501 Vermont Agency of Education. (2020). Education quality and continuous improvement framework. http://education.vermont.gov/documents/education-quality-and-continuous-improvement-framework c e p s Journal 31 Wahidi, A. (2022). Zonasi Setengah Hati—Ombudsman RI [Half-hearted zoning—According to the Indonesian Ombudsman]. Ombudsman.go.id. https://ombudsman.go.id/artikel/r/pwkinternal--zonasi-setengah-hati Walte, S., Fitchett, C., & Courtade, G. (2022). Use student assessment data, analyze instructional practices, and make necessary adjustments that improve student outcomes. In R. Pennington, M. Ault, G. Courtade, J. M. Jameson, & A. Ruppar (Eds.), High leverage practices and students with extensive support needs: A Co-publication with the Council for Exceptional Children (1st edition, pp. 64–78). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003175735 Wang, Z., Gong, S.-Y ., Xu, S., & Hu, X.-E. (2019). Elaborated feedback and learning: Examining cognitive and motivational influences. Computers & Education, 136, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.003 Washington State Board of Education. (2020). Washington school improvement framework. https://www.sbe.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/meetings/Mar-2020/Washington%20School%20 Improvement%20Framework.pdf Welsh Government. (2021). School improvement guidance: Framework for evaluation, improvement and accountability. https://democratic.bridgend.gov.uk/documents/s25415/Appendix%201%20210126%20school%20im - provement%20guidance%20framework.pdf Werf, G. V . D., Creemers, B., Jong, R. D., & Klaver, E. (2000). Evaluation of school improvement through an educational effectiveness model: The case of Indonesia’s PEQIP project. Comparative Education Review, 44(3), 329–355. https://doi.org/10.1086/447617 WestEd. (2017). Four domains for rapid school improvement: A systems framework. https://www.wested.org/four-domains-for-rapid-school-improvement/# Winaya, I. M. A., Putu Edy Purna Wijaya, I Nengah Sudiarta, & I Made Sutika. (2022). Analisis prisip-prinsip pengelolaan dana Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (BOS) reguler dalam program Merdeka Belajar [Analysis of the principles of managing regular School Operational Assistance (BOS) Funds in the Merdeka Belajar Program]. Widya Accarya, 13(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.46650/wa.13.2.1277.133-144 Xu, W ., & Zammit, K. (2020). Applying thematic analysis to education: A hybrid approach to interpreting data in practitioner research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 19, Article 160940692091881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920918810 Y eigh, T., Lynch, D., Turner, D., Provost, S. C., Smith, R., & Willis, R. L. (2019). School leadership and school improvement: An examination of school readiness factors. School Leadership & Management, 39(5), 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1505718 school improvement framework for indonesia 32 Biographical note Yuna Puteri Kadarisman, MEd, is a doctoral student at Universi - tas Negeri Yogyakarta. Her research interests focus on educational policy and school improvement, with additional expertise in classroom assessment. Moh. Rifqi Rahman, PhD, holds a doctorate in Islamic education policy from UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, Indonesia. His research interests in - clude education policy, technology-assisted learning, and learning assessment. Suyanto, PhD, is a professor at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta and a distinguished scholar in economic education. His research interests also en - compass education policy, management, and leadership. Cepi Safruddin Abdul Jabar, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. His research interests focus on effective school culture, and his expertise spans the disciplines of Educational Management, Educational Leadership, and Educational Policy. Ahmad Umar, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at UIN Walisongo Se - marang. His expertise lies in Educational Management and Leadership in the school context.