1

Using the Management of Quality Assurance to ImproveEarly Childhood Education: Study of Quality Assurance

Practices in Central Java and West Nusa Tenggara,Indonesia

Education in Indonesia is undergoing significant change.

Finding solutions and developing management functions is

necessary, however, exactly how to do it and how to prepare it

is problematic. I care very much about these problems, so I

will consider the important vehicle of positive change in how

to manage Quality Assurance, and how to use it in order to

improve the quality in education. That is why I chose

Management of Quality Assurance as the medium for development.

The Background

One of the most important components in education is Quality

Assurance (QA), which is becoming the main educational

priority in Indonesia. This is because that quality can create

an environment where educators, parents, government officials,

the community, and business leaders work together to provide

students with the resources (Arcaro, 1995). Quality Assurance

is seen as a central element in strategies to raise standards

in education. One reason is to establish specific standards

and ensure these are met consistently (Ellis, 1993). QA is

supported by operating organisations. The Educational Quality

Assurance Centre (EQAC), Ministry of Education and Culture

(MOEC) in Republic of Indonesia is mandated to support QA by

legal decrees.

2

However, what is lacking is systematic management of QA,

fulfilling the expectations of the quality in education, and

sufficient and appropriate resources to implement its

programmes. The root of all the issues and constraints within

the QA sub-sector is the relatively weak institutional

capability. Although the EQAC is mandated to conduct quality

assurance programmes for Early Childhood Education in

Indonesia, it does not yet have either the trained officers

and inspectors nor adequate resources, or a co-ordinating

structure that functions. Its weaknesses are exacerbated by

the other education institutional constraints, such as weak

institutional capability of direct responsibility to schools

and the shortage of qualified staff. As a result of these

constraints upon institutional capability, other problems

arise such as a severely limited impact to raise standards in

education. There are inefficiency and behavioural constraints.

Meanwhile, the education level in Indonesia was relatively

low. This was indicated by World Human Development Indext,

Indonesia is on 108th position from 187 countries (UNDP,

2014). This achievement can not be separated from the

portrait of early childhood education in Indonesia as the most

important and decisive part of Indonesian people. Early

childhood (infant-5 years) are the most critical age or the

most decisive in the formation of character and personality of

a person. Including the development of intelligence is almost

entirely under the age of five years. The importance of golden

3

age that determine 80 % capacity development is supposed to be

achieved in early childhood (0-6 years old) has not

implemented appropriately. Parents and teachers are prefer to

teach reading and numerical than to build playing as core

activity for early childhood learning (Latief, Afandi,

Zubaidah, and Rita, 2013). It can not take a part from

qualification and competencies of teachers and education staff

in Early Childhood Education (ECE) have not met standard yet.

Continuous Professional Development (CPD) of early childhood

education has just achieved 118 teachers (23 %) from 402.493

teachers. Bachelor degree (S1-D4) has just achieved by 15, 72%

early childhood education teachers (Directorate of Early

Childhood Education Development, 2013).

While it is possible to consider quality improvement in order

to overcome poor conditions, several crucial aspects are

likely to stimulate the change through using the management of

QA. The simultaneous development of these aspects will include

management of QA, an analytical approach to a QA model, review

of standards in education, school self-evaluation, inspection,

supervision, and improvement. This would provide a firm basis

upon which to determine what strategy should be adopted, and

then be reflected in implementation practice. This planning,

in turn, will be matched with standards needs and outcomes.

However, this process does not just simply happen. It requires

incremental progress through internal and external analysis in

support of improvement and viable change.

4

5

It might, therefore, be argued that an understanding of the

Management of QA can be used as a framework for analysis and

this, in turn, will meet value added with quality improvement

(Harris, et. al., 1997; OFSTED, 1995). This might be because

raise standards in education through QA in line with the

educational goal in Indonesia. It seems, therefore, that it is

important to transform management of QA to become much more of

a process of QA. Based on the statements above, managing QA is

interested to study. This study also focuses on the

application of a QA model appropriate with Indonesian

condition. It, in turn, will make a positive contribution to

raise standards in education.

The Research Questions

The following questions are researched: (1) What benefits does

the MQA offer?; (2) To what extent is the MQA improve the

Early Childhood Education?

The Purpose of the Study

This study undertakes to explore, highlight and interpret the

central principles of Quality Assurance and how they are

applied in Central Java and West Nusa Tenggara provinces. The

main purpose of this study then is to examine how Quality

Assurance can be applied in practice in Indonesia. A further

aim is to examine the sustainability of a Quality Assurance

system in Indonesia.

The Limitation and the Location of the Study

6

The scope of this study is the management of QA which is under

the co-ordination of the Local Education Authority (Dinas

Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota) in Indonesia. This includes its

organisation, the QA model adopted, management, application,

school self evaluation, inspection, and supervision. The study

covered some Districts’ Kindergarten Association (IGTKI) in

Central Java and West Nusa Tenggara provinces because the

associations are closely working where policy documents,

reference materials, books, data and information are

available. This study focused on kindergarten schools as a

great model.

7

The Benefits

The study can be used: (1) as a guide supported by a handbook

for improving Early Childhood Education; (2) as a reference

for the development of management of quality assurance

approach appropriate to needs, so that schools can be required

to be more dynamic and innovative in the development of the

teaching and learning process; (3) as a basis for schools

development plans in Central Java and West Nusa Tenggara,

Indonesia; (4) as a format for the future development of QA to

ensure school improvement.

The Scope

The scope of this study is the management of quality

assurance. It focuses on the quality assurance process

(framework, plan, implementation, evaluation) that consists of

the main components of quality assurance.

The Literature Review

What is Quality Assurance?

Oakland (1993, p.13) describes that quality assurance is

broadly the preventing of quality problems through planned and

systematic activities (including documentation). These will

include the establishment of a good quality management system

and the assessment of its adequacy, the audit of the operation

of the system, and the review of the system itself. This

implies that it is the set of activities that an educational

institution undertakes to ensure standards are specified and

8

reached consistently for an education service (Robinson,

1994). This involves setting attainable standards, organising

work so that they are achieved, documenting the procedures

required, communicating them to all concerned, and monitoring

and reviewing the attainment of standards.

However, Lawton (2004) argues that quality assurance is a

means of ensuring that effective structures and procedures are

in place to monitor and improve standards in education. This

point seems to suggest that quality assurance may be carried

out systematically through regular independent inspection

which would raise standards of achievement and the quality of

education. It also would have an important role to play in

making education more accountable to its stakeholders. This

point is suggested by Perry (1995) ‘regularity of inspection

is an inescapable ingredient of using inspection as real tool

to raise performance’. Perry (1995) believes that the Local

Education Authority inspectors were neither independent nor

impartial because of their closeness to the schools they

inspected and the fact that they were part of the same

organisation that provided the funding the inspection process.

The Framework for the Inspection of Schools and Handbook

requires inspectors to evaluate four aspects of the work of

schools employing the Office for Standards in Education

(OFSTED) model (OFSTED, 1995), as follows: (1) the quality of

the education provided by the school; (2) the educational

standards achieved; (3) the efficiency of financial

management; and (4) the spiritual, moral, social, and cultural

9

development of the pupils. In addition, QA procedures need to

cover aspects of provision that include assessment and

management, and quality of training (Teacher Training Agency,

2002). In the United Kingdom, for example, during the 1970’s,

observing and monitoring standards was commonly used,

especially in connection with the work of the Assessment of

Performance Unit (as claimed by Lawton and Gordon, 1993).

In addition, the Government of Indonesia mandated that there

should be systemic and integrated activities by the education

unit, education institutions, local government, government,

and society to improve the level of intelligence of the nation

through education (Ministerial Decree No. 63 of Y. 2009),

hereinafter referred to as the Education Quality Assurance,

has a strong legal foundation, stated in Government Regulation

No. 19 of Y. 2005 on National Education Standards, chapter XV,

Quality Assurance, article 91. Then, the Educational Quality

Assurance programme is also equipped by the Indonesian

Government Regulation No. 32 of Y. 2013 on Amendment to

Government Regulation No. 19 of Y. 2005 on National Education

Standards. Based on these regulations, quality assurance of

education, particularly early childhood, has a central role in

the improvement on an ongoing basis, aimed at: (1) developing

a culture of quality early childhood care and maintenance; (2)

dividing the duties and responsibilities in quality assurance

proportionally among the organizers of early childhood

education unit, District, Provincial Government and the

Government; (3) setting the mold in national early childhood

10

care and quality assurance; (4) mapping the quality of early

childhood (province, district, and education unit); (5) the

early childhood quality development information system that is

reliable, compact, and connected between the education unit,

district, provincial government, and the government.

In mapping the condition of the education unit, specifically

early childhood, has to meet four Standard of Education,

consisting of: a standard level of performance development;

standard teachers and education staff; standard content,

process, and evaluation; infrastructure, management, and

financing (the Regulation No. 58th of Y. 2009).

Furthermore, the strategy of Quality Improvement to Achieve

World-Class Education, the vision of "Awakening Cultural

Quality Education Unit in implementing National Standard

Education International Competitiveness Towards Y. 2020", in

the end how the quality of education in Indonesia on part with

world-class quality education. To achieve it, it should be

done through the 5 stages of strategy towards improving the

quality of world-class education, namely: (1) quality policy,

(2) total quality development system, (3) competition

conducted in multiple stages, (4) accreditation done glazed

frames, (5) quality assurance system in total.

Development and implementation of Education Quality Assurance

System is the embodiment of the adoption of the concept of

Quality in Education, as shown in the picture.

11

Along the way, the conceptual process of "keeping" quality has

evolved. To begin with, the process of maintaining quality

control is done through a process of quality (quality

control), which is a post-production process is carried out by

the quality controllers to detect or reject defective

products.

Then, quality assurance performed both before and after the

production process. This process aims to prevent the error

from the beginning, so that the production process can then be

designed that can produce products according to specifications

or standards. In education, it is very possible to happen to

12

be done through the control system, which is tight at every

stage of education achievement.

In addition, total quality management, quality improvement,

called an extension and development of quality assurance.

Integrated quality management is an attempt to create a

quality culture, which encourages all stakeholders in the

organisation to consistently satisfy customers. Consistency

satisfaction of the customers is done by all related

components at the central level, regional, and education unit

in accordance with the duties, functions, and capacity

respectively.

What is School Improvement ?

Fullan (1991) argued that school improvement is indicated by

dynamic changes and dynamic educational changes is depend on

teachers think and changes towards their practice including

their beliefs and attitude. Hargreaves and Fullan (1998)

support the view, that the impetus for significant change

often comes from external sources. On the other hand, Stoll

and Fink (1995), as cited in Prosser (1999, p.47) argued that

real improvement cannot come from anywhere other than within

educational institutions themselves’. However, I believe that

stressing from external support forces the internal support

works in line to improvement. As Fullan says that putting new

policy in place is a part of the innovation process. Then I

argued that Management of Quality Assurance as the policy from

13

external support will emerge internal support from school,

then together build quality. As figured out:

Figure 1.

Figure 1 shows strategies in cyle. First cycle focuses on (1)

Strategy and Policy on QA for early childhood education; (2)

Capacity Building for Human Resource Development (HRD); (3)

Fact Finding (technical assistance) in local area; (4) Program

Disseminated; (5) Clinical Supervision and Evaluation; (6)

White Paper Report of Quality Mapping; (7) Successfull

Practice Disseminated of Early Childhood Educational Quality

Assurance (ECEQA); (8) Information and Communication Sytem

Development of ECEQA.

14

The meeting point in the second cycle are: (3) Fact Finding

(technical assistance) in local area; (4) Program

Disseminated; (5) Clinical Supervision and Evaluation on

ECEQA; (6) White Paper Report of Quality Mapping on ECEQA.

Both cycles are expected to be persisted and continued

improvement so the QA system for early childhood education can

be invented. Each step on the cycle is explained as follows:

1. ECEQA’S Strategy and Policy

EEQA’s Strategy and Policy purpose for setting norm, standard,

procedure and criteria in early childhood education quality

assurance. To accomplish this activity, it needs to involve

many parties, such as, Institution for Developing Educational

Human Resource, Cultural and Educational Quality Assurance;

Acreditation Board for Early Childhood, Non-Formal and

Informal’s Education; Directorate General of Early Childhood,

Non Formal and Informal Education; Research and Development

Centre; Educational Quality Assurance Institution, Development

and Capacity Building Centre for Early Childhood’s Teachers

and Education staff, and Universities. This activity carries

on intensively once a month.

2. Capacity Building for Human Resource Development

This activity purposes to enhance the ability of Quality

Improvement Officer team. The team consists of Educational

Quality Assurance Centre, Educational Quality Assurance

Institution, Acreditation Board for Early Childhood, Non-

Formal and Informal’s Education, Directorate General for Early

15

Childhood, Non Formal and Informal Education, Research and

Development Centre, Educational Quality Assurance Institution,

Development and Capacity Building Centre for early Childhood’s

Teachers and Education staff and Universities. The team is

supposed to be enriched by knowledges and skills. The team are

expected not only to be professional in educational problem

diagnostic, but also to be able to give constructive

suggetions and technical supports for implementing Quality

Assurance in Early Childhood Education. This activity is

supposed to be conducted in 2 steps. Each step carries on for

7 days by 40 participants.

3. Fact Finding

The Quality Improvement Officer Team are expected to visit

targeted Kindegarten. The targeted kindergartens are expected

to be a central meeting for local kindergartens (10-20

schools). The team consist of 2 officers to conduct their

taskforces in the targeted school. While the fact finding

activity are undertaken, the team should ensure that the

targeted schools are able to perform School Self Evaluation

(SSE) and its feedback.

4. Program Dessiminated

Kindegartens’ representative in Finding Fact activities are

expected to accomplish and disseminate to other local

kindegartens more less 5 schools for 45 days. They are also

expected to construct networking among kindegartens, so they

16

are able to actively communicate each other and share

information and best practice continously and sustainly.

5. Clinical Supervision and Evaluation

Quality Improvement Officer Team are also supposed to visit

targeted Kindegartens in Fact Finding activity. They not only

observe targeted kindegarden’s progress, but also collect the

data from disseminated kindergartens. When the program is

disseminated well, the data from 100 kindegartens will be

successfully collected from each targeted school. Clinical

Supervision and Evaluation will be conducted in 5 days.

6. White Paper Report for National Standard Achivement

The analized data of the whole activities will be constructed

to be kindegartens’ profile in each school, local area,

districts, province and national level. White papper report

needs 3 session, each for 5 days.

7. Successfull Practice

This action focuses on dissemination, sharing experience and

benchmarking. Dissemination intended to the result of White

Paper Report for National Standard Achivement will be

presented to stakeholders. Sharing experince is expected to be

conducted among kindegartens for extending targeted

kindegartens. Benchmarking focuses on improving the ability

and skill of earlychildhood’s teachers and education staff

17

cooperated by national and international quality assurance

institutions.

8. Information and Communication System Development

The whole activities on the cycle are supported by developing

information and communication system for early chilhood

educational quality assurance.

The Research Methodology

The methodological approaches in this study is influenced by

the work of Kumar (2005), Patton (2002), Bryman (2001),

Richardson (1996), Denzin and Lincoln (2000), Cohen and Manion

(1994), Robson (2002), and Yin (1994). This qualitative study

is evaluation research, using a survey model on the basis of

the respondents’ answers to questionnaires. The questionnaires

are related to the measurement of standards in education.

Then, this study carried out interviews with respondents to

gain depth in data and information that is supported by

classroom observation. Moreover, this study will be supported

by sample documentations (e.g. pupils’ development,

attainment, continuous professional development, and list of

pupils’ attendance).

The Population

The population in this study are headteahers, teachers, and

students at kindegarten in Central Java and West Nusa

Tenggara. The schools have common characteristics, such as,

public schools, civil servant status for headteachers and

18

teachers. The MQA programmes have been run for 8 months from

February to September 2014.

The Collecting Data

Collecting data carried out during the school year. This aims

to obtain data and information concerning schools’ performance

as a starting point. Data are collected through Development

Instrument of ECE Application distributed to headteachers and

teachers. The application distributed to headteachers and

teachers who are contributing to the teaching and learning

process. Headteachers and teachers are expected to fill in

application by clicking (√) at statements that have been

provided. The result of the application, then, collected,

processed, and analysed. The results would be subjected in

triangulation through the study of documentation and

professional judgement.

The Data Analysis

19

note: SPTK : Standard for Teacher and Education StaffSIPP : Standard for Content, Process and AssessmentSarpras : Standard for Equipment and FacilitiesSTTP : Standard for Student AchievementTP1 : InadequateTP2 : Need ImprovementTP3 : GoodTP4 : Outstanding

The study has shown that Management of Quality Assurance

indirectly has provided guidelines of reference for school

improvement. Experiences from headteachers and teachers

indicates positively of MQA implementation as well as its

impact into school improvement. The data begins from Central

Java that have population 1520 kindegarten. It started form

the Standard for Teacher and Education Staff in Central Java.

44 % of population has been outstanding of NES, 33% has met

the NES and 22% population still need improvement. Standard

for Content, Process and Assessment (SIIP) was achieved by 40%

population for outstanding, 30% for good, 20% for need

improvement and the rest 10% for inadequate. Similary, 40%

population are outstanding, 30% are good, 20% are ‘need

improvement’ and 10% are inadequate for Facilities Standard.

The three standard gave implication for student achivement

20

standard, 40 % from population have been over National

Education Standard (outstanding), 30 % met the NES and the

rest 20 % and 10 % have been ‘ Need Improvement’ and

‘Inadequate’.

The data of West Nusa Tenggara is not too much different form

Central Java. The population of West Nusa Tenggara is 39

kindegarten. To begin with, teachers and education staff, 44 %

of population has been outstanding of NES, 33% has met the NES

and 22% population still need improvement. The same

achievement for Standard of Content, Process and Assessment

(SIIP) and facilities standard (Sarpras), 44% for outstanding,

33 % for meeting the NES (good) and 23% for need improvement.

The theree standards gave impact for students achievement

standard 40 % for outstanding, 30% for good, 20% for need

improvement and 10% for inadequate.

In regard to SIIP and SARPRAS, the data report from

government (MOEC Report, 2014) stated that the government’

facilities aids for infrastructure and teaching learning is

limited. In contrast, the data showed that Standard for

Content, Process and Assessment (SIPP) and Standard for

Equipment and Facilities (Sarpras) can be achieved by each 40%

in Java for outstanding. In similar, SIIP and Sarpras in West

Nusa Tenggara can be achieved by each 44% for outstanding. The

pie data also showed that there was the same patern from the

result in 2 provinces. The result from standard of teachers

and education staff (SPTK) was almost the same the result of

21

SIIIP, SARPRAS and STTP. When SPTK was achieved by 44 % for

outstanding, the result in SIIP, SARPRAS and STTP is not too

much different, 40 % for outstanding. However, when 20%

population reached ‘need improvement’ in SPTK, the unexpected

result happened in SIIP, SARPRAS and STTP. The Both data

implicitly confirmed that Standard for Teachers and Education

Staff (SPTK) is key for others standard. The result of SIIP,

SRAPRAS and SPTK is depend on how the teacher and headteacher

could achieve in SPTK. Performing a program that enhance

teachers and education staff will give positive impact for

others standard. Then, I conclude that conducting MQA is

valuable to rise standard of teacher and education staff, so

that it boosts rising the others standard.

The data reflected that conducting MQA into school program

persuade teachers and headtechers to take their self

evaluation and reflect it into some feedback recommendation in

teaching learning practice and school managing. As Fullan

(2001) says that educational change depends on how teachers

and headteachers think and involves changes in practices. The

MQA drived teachers and headteachers as catalyst of change,

initiate to adequate of their own knowledge, skills,

understanding, performance, beliefs, attitudes and values for

the purpose of changes. It conclude that MQA made teachers and

headteachers as a target as expected to lead personal and

group practice and recognizes that the main reasons for

producing students who can compete in national and

international level derive from teacher's teaching and

22

leadership' practices of what it means to be a teacher and a

headteacher. In other words, MQA is like to cover or minimize

the gap in Early Childhood Education concerning the

sustainability issue.

However, the data found that there is 22 % of population in

Central Java and West Nusa Tenggara that their SPTK is on

‘need improvement zone. It presented destructive waves for

others standard. The data signified that there are some

aspects that should be improved in the MQA itself such as

feedback, support in continuing professional development and

monitoring of evaluation. From the findings, the study

suggests that developing a system for fostering teachers,

headteachers and others education staff to take follow up

action and assisting their sustainability is expected to

minimize the issues in educational quality in Indonesia,

especially early childhood education.

Conclusion

“If What You Do, Does Not Bring About Improvement for Teacher. Please, Do Not Do

It” (Wright, 2007). The study has shown that MQA circuitously has

delivered guidelines of reference for school' improvement.

Experiences from teachers and headteachers sign positively MQA

implementation as well as its impact into school improvement.

Eventhough, there was a little sign that there should be

23

straitening of MQA program in some schools. However, MQA has

provided impacts for school development in Indonesia.

The positive aspect of MQA has guided to enforce teacher and

education staff standards. Indirectly, it also promoted

improvement for teachers and education staff; leading teachers

and headteachers to used to feedback and educational solution

recommendation in MQA as self evaluation. The impact of self

evaluation has encouraged motivation and spirit for teachers

and headteachers to engage into continuing professional

development and changing of practice. They retain into some

innovation of their profession practice, including how to

maximize facilities and infrastructure to be engange into

teaching learning practice. However, the weaknesses of MQA

system indicates a resist for improvement itself. No further

framework in MQA results lead to no direction for the next

step the teachers and headteachers should do. It did not give

a framework of reference for school to optimize their

potential.

Finally, school improvement is not the responsibility of the

teacher and headteacher only, but also of professional

community, for example, other members of school, educational

authorities, supervisors, colleagues, and, in some cases,

researchers also need to be involved.

24

Reflecting from the study, there are some areas for further

that I would like to recommend:

1. Promote for evidence-based and culturally relevant

frameworks, standards and practices for quality

assurance.

The principal of quality assurance framework, urged by a

research base are suppose to be reflected into such an

evidence-based framework that requires attention to

cultural context that would reflect local factors.

Without this, culture and needs may put to risk the

achievement of desired outcomes in MQA.

2. Develop more appropriate supports that would ensure that

quality assurance is not the responsibility of the

teacher and headteacher only, but also of boarder

professional community.

The establishment of MQA is only one of the initial steps

toward improving quality. There must also be an effort to

ensure that tools and resources that contribute to

quality are readily available to all providers and

practitioners of early care and education services. This

quality support may include, but are not limited to,

training and education programs for MQA target (teacher

and headteacher) but also other provider such as Local

Education Authority. School position in District Autonomy

is under coordination of LEA. In line of this, involving

supervisor and other education staff in MQA targets will

be aligned into improvement contribution.

25

3. Strengthen and improve the cooperative between central

government and other stakeholders of early childhood

education.

Promote continuing dialogues between all relevant

government departments concerned with early childhood

education, and the community stakeholders to develop

frameworks for quality assurance and other initiatives

meant to improve quality of early childhood, such as

central government, local government, school and

community that initiates the existing of Building

Learning Community.

References:

Agung, I.G.N., (1992) Social Research Method: Theory and Practise.Jakarta: Gramedia.

Arcaro, J.S. (1995) Quality in Education: An Implementation Handbook. Florida: Lucie Press.

Bryman, A. (2001) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Cohen, L., and Manion, L., (1994) Research Methods in Education(the4edn). London: Croom Helm.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (edr) (2000) Handbook of QualitativeResearch (the2edn). London: SAGE.

Directorate of Early Childhood Education Development, (2013)Early Childhood Education Development Report. Jakarta:MOEC.

26

Ellis, R. (1993) Quality Assurance for University Teaching. Buckingham:Open University.

Education Office in District of Jakarta (2005) National Examination Results in Jakarta.http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/berita/0507/01/jab01.html 23 Aug. 05

Fullan, M., (1997) The Challenge of School Change; The Complexity of theChange Process. Illionis: Skylight Training andPublishing.

Fullan, M., (2001) The Meaning of Educational Change (3rd ed). London:Routledge Falmer.

Fullan, M., (2003) Change Forces with a Vengeance. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Harris, A., Bennett, N., and Preedy, M. (eds.) (1997)Organisational Effectiveness and Improvement in Education.Buckingham: Open University Press.

Kumar, R., (2005) Research Methodology: A Step by Step Guide for Beginners(the2edn). London: Sage.

Latief, Afandi, Zubaidah, and Rita, (2013) Dimensi PendidikanAnak Usia Dini. Jakarta: MOEC

Lawton, D. (2004) Raising Standards in Education. Paperpresented at The Workshop of Management of QualityAssurance for Raising Standards in Education. At TheInstitute of Education, University of London,September 2004.

Lawton, D., and Gordon. P. (1993) Dictionary of Education. London:Hodder and Stoughton.

MONE (2005) National Education Data. Jakarta: MONE.

27

Oakland, J.S. (1993) Total Quality Management: The Route to Improving

Performance (the2edn). Oxford: Bufferworth-Heinemann.

OFSTED (1995) The OFSTED Handbook. London: HMSO.

Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methodology (the3edn). London: SAGE

Perry, P. (1995) School Inspection: The Information of OFSTED in Brighouse.London: Pitman Publishing.

Robinson, B. (1994) Ensuring Quality in the Planning and Development ofDistance Learning Courses. Paper Presented at the 20th

Anniversary International Conference on DistanceLearning, 20-22 September 1994. Colombia.

Richardson, J.T.E. (edr) (1996) Handbook of Qualitative Research forPsychology and Methods the Social Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.

Robson, C., (2002) Real World Research (the 2edn). Oxford: Blackwell.

Teacher Training Agency (2002) Qualifying to Teach Handbook ofGuidance. London: Teacher Training Agency.

UNDP, (2014) Human development Report 2014. New York: UNDP.

Wright, C., (2007) Raising Standards of Education. London: SAGE.

Yin, K.R. (1994) Case Study Research (the2 edn) London: SAGE.