Performance Evaluation Model for School Supervisors to Improve the Quality of Senior High Schools in the Special Region of Yogyakarta
Abstract
This research aimed to: (1) develop a performance evaluation model for school supervisors; (2) examine the feasibility of the model; and (3) determine its effectiveness in improving the quality of senior high schools in the Special Region of Yogyakarta. This study used the research and development method. Data were collected through focus group discussions and questionnaires. Quantitative data were analyzed with the help of statistics and qualitative data through interactive models. A performance evaluation model for school supervisors to use to improve the quality of senior high schools in the Special Region of Yogyakarta was developed by implementing procedural development research. The guidelines for implementing the model were found to be feasible, with an average score of 4.30 or ‘excellent’, and the evaluation guide had an average score of 4.60 or ‘excellent’ as well. The readability of the instrument was scored by six school supervisors: it received an average score of 3.90, which was in the ‘good’ category. The evaluation guide was given a score of 4.00 (in the ‘good’ category), while the level of performance assessed by the six school supervisors was 1.94 or ‘very good’. The level of performance assessed by 10 high school teachers was 1.92 or ‘very good’. The findings also showed that the school supervisor level of performance, which was assessed by 20 school supervisors, had an average score of 1.88 (which was classified as ‘excellent’), and the performance assessed by 20 high school teachers was scored as 1.94, or ‘excellent’. The average performance of school supervisors was 95.50, which was categorized as ‘excellent’.
Keywords: model, evaluation, performance, school supervisors, school quality
References
[1] Negara S. Raharjo SB. Evaluasi trend kualitas pendidikan di Indonesia. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan. 2012;16 (2), 511–532.
[2] Engkoswara. Paradigma manajemen pendidikan. Yayasan Amal Keluarga; 2001.
[3] Davis DL, Davis S. Quality management: Introduction total quality management for production, processing, and service. 5th ed. Pearson; 2006.
[4] Sudjana N. Kerja pengawas sekolah. Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional; 2011.
[5] Philip K, Fox FA, Karen K. Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Prentice Hall Inc.; 2003.
[6] Ditjen Dikdasmen Depdiknas. Manajemen peningkatan mutu berbasis sekolah. 2001.
[7] Burnham JW. Managing quality in school, effective strategies for quality-based school improvement. Prentice Hall; 2010.
[8] Slamet PH. Karakteristik kepala sekolah tangguh. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 2001; 25:319- 333.
[9] Wayne HK, Miskel M, Cecil G. Educational administration. McGraw Hill Companies; 2001.
[10] Banathy B, Bela H. A systems view of education: concepts and principles for effective practice. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications; 1992.
[11] Arikunto S, Jabar CS. Evaluasi program pendidikan: Panduan teoritis praktis bagi praktisi pendidikan. Bumi Aksara; 2004.
[12] Widoyoko SEP. Pengembangan model evaluasi pembelajaran IPS di SMP. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta; 2007.
[13] Burden PR, Byrd DM. Method for effective teaching. Allyn and Bacon; 1999.
[14] Arikunto S. Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan. Bumi Aksara; 2010.
[15] Permendiknas Nomor 12 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Pengawas Sekolah/Madrasah.
[16] Ruky AS. Sistem manajemen kerja: Panduan praktis untuk merancang dan meraih kinerja prima. Gramedia Pustaka Utama; 2001.
[17] Sulaiman N. Kinerja kepala sekolah: Studi korelasi antara pengetahuan tentang manajemen sekolah dan sikap terhadap jabatan dengan kinerja kepala SD di kola madya depok Jakarta. Jakarta: IKIP; 2001.
[18] Lunenburg H, Ornstein M. Educational administration. Wodworth; 1999.
[19] Borg WR, Gall MD. Educational research: An introduction. Longman; 2013.