School-Based Management: Participation in Improving the Quality of Education

and work programs as the basic basis for carrying out activities, the implementation of school participation installations has not been carried out properly because there has not been an allocation of budgetary costs as a supporting facility to support organizational activities, implementation of the school participation process has been carried out, but not all roles have been carried out optimally by schools, implementation of school participation products already exists but is not yet by government standards. Products of school participation that still need evaluation reports on work program quality report cards, namely: budget evaluation results, infrastructure, learning outcomes, meeting minutes, quality report card production unit development documents, and graduate marketing reports.


A B S T R A C T
Many efforts have been made to improve the quality of education, but education is still faced with various problems, the most crucial of which is the low quality of education. The aims of this study were to evaluate the implementation of school participation in improving the quality of education. This type of research is descriptive evaluative research. The evaluation model used in this study is the discrepancy evaluation model. This study used interview techniques, observation, and document study to collect data. Data acquisition is used with Miles and Huberman analysis. Data validation was obtained by using the data validity triangulation technique. The study results showed that the implementation of the school participation design has been carried out but has yet to meet the standards set by the government. It is because there are no AD/ART and work programs as the basic basis for carrying out activities, the implementation of school participation installations has not been carried out properly because there has not been an allocation of budgetary costs as a supporting facility to support organizational activities, implementation of the school participation process has been carried out, but not all roles have been carried out optimally by schools, implementation of school participation products already exists but is not yet by government standards. Products of school participation that still need evaluation reports on work program quality report cards, namely: budget evaluation results, infrastructure, learning outcomes, meeting minutes, quality report card production unit development documents, and graduate marketing reports.

INTRODUCTION
Many efforts have been made to improve the quality of education, but education is still faced with various problems, the most crucial of which is the low quality of education. From the several findings, one of the contributing factors includes the low participation of the community in determining school policy due to the community's lack of sense of belonging and lack of responsibility in maintaining and fostering the school where their children attend school. There is a positive influence of the implementation of school-based management on the quality of education (Maskur, 2021). There are efforts to improve the quality of education through school-based management policies (Patras et al., 2019).
The lack of quality education has something to do with management problems, so the idea arises that schools are given the freedom to manage education by implementing various policies widely. The notion of increasing the role of schools in school management is called School-Based Management (SBM) (Bandur, 2018). Implementing SBM, curriculum management, and learning processes can be carried out effectively and efficiently, building student character, learning achievement, and quality of education (Amon & Rajib Bustami, 2021). School-Based management in improving quality and characteristics in providing broad opportunities for the decentralization of education to participate or actively participate in determining the direction of schooling (Aisyah, 2021;Panggabean et al., 2022;Sumarsono et al., 2019). This opinion states that the policy of involving interest groups in the administration of schooling is a positive effort in empowering input and output interests by applicable policy standards. School-based management (SBM) matches existing resources at school by involving all stakeholder groups (Apriliani et al., 2021;Hasnawati, 2021). The characteristics of the effectiveness of SBM implementation can be seen in schools as a system consisting of input-output processes. So to determine the effectiveness of SBM implementation, it is necessary to evaluate its implementation in schools. This statement is in line with the research that the results show that SD Santo Antonius I Bidaracina has evaluated school-based management (SBM) in education administration (Margaretha et al., 2021). The implementation of SBM at SD Santo Antonius I is based on the principles and standards of implementing school-based management (SBM), which have a very significant impact on the output produced by the school. A school management model called School-Based Management is an education management strategy that promotes cooperation between various parties (Rohma et al., 2020). Define school-based management (SBM) as an alternative form of school management to improve the quality of education, which is characterized by greater flexibility in making decisions at the school level and relatively high community participation within the framework of education policy national (Mahyudin & Lestari, 2021). The implementation of SBM has a teaching staff component to develop the ability of school principals with teachers and school committee elements in the SBM aspect to improve school quality (Andriyan & Yoenanto, 2022;Subaidi et al., 2021).
Evaluating the implementation of school-based management in improving the quality of education in schools must apply the SBM system with various input or planning stages and process stages by carrying out routine monitoring and evaluation that will affect the results in the form of improving the quality of education in schools (Achadah, 2019; Wahyudi et al., 2020). There is a difference between evaluation and program evaluation. Evaluation is an activity carried out so that all information about how something works is used to determine the right alternative or step for program evaluation (Endah Retno Suci & Aris Widodo, 2022;Fadliah, 2020). The essence of school-based management (SBM) is that it is obligatory to involve the community in managing education so that the community has a sense of empathy for the success of education and realizes that education is a shared responsibility. The school committee is the bridge between the community and the school. Forms of community participation can be poured into the school committee's work program in the organization as a body of consideration, supporter, and mediator (Athiyah, 2019;Wahyudi et al., 2020). The evaluation model used in this study is the Discrepancy evaluation model (DEM) developed by Malcolm Provus (Said et al., 2019;Supriyadi et al., 2022). This evaluation model emphasizes more on the view of the existence of gaps in the implementation of national education quality standards.
Problems were found in implementing SMKN 1 Tengaran regarding school participation through interviews with committee members and teachers. Information was obtained that there was a gap between the role of school committees based on standards and their implementation in schools, so school participation had not been implemented optimally. On this basis, it is necessary to research the evaluation implementation of school-based management focused on school participation at SMKN 1 Tengaran. It proves that teachers, school committees, curriculum, and community still lack participation in preparing planning programs and input and output processes to improve education quality report cards. Based on the existing background, this research was conducted to evaluate the design, installation, process, and products resulting from the implementation of school participation program activities at SMKN 1 Tengaran against performance standards from the government. We hope this research will be useful in providing scientific contributions and information for school principals, heads of the school curriculum, teachers, and school committees.

METHOD
This research is qualitative, with an evaluative descriptive model with the subject of school principals, vice principals, heads of school curricula, heads of school committees, and teachers at SMKN 1 Tengaran-data collection techniques using interviews, observation, and document study. Data validation uses data and source triangulation. The data analysis technique used refers to the (Miles & Huberman, 2014), which includes three stages, namely: (1) data collection; (2) data reduction; and (3) data presentation, as a guide or reference for determining the percentage of school curriculum performance, an instrument for the activities that have been carried out is developed so that it is easy to evaluate the progress of improving the quality of education report cards (Kurniawan et al., 2020;Moleong, 2007). The MBS program activities will be presented in Table 1.

Result
The results of this study were divided into four parts: the design of the quality report card program, the installation of the quality report card program, the quality report card implementation process, and the quality report card implementation product. The design of the quality report card program at SMK Negeri 1 Tengaran consists of the School Committee's design and the School Curriculum's design. To support the achievement of the objectives of the Vocational High School, Tengaran 1 Public Vocational School establishes cooperation with the business world and the industrial world, especially in the Provision of education and training. The results of the analysis of the formation of the School Committee at SMKN 1 Tengaran show that the school chooses the process of forming committee members, from the chairman to the members. Seven members consisting of 2 community leaders, two alumni, one teacher, and one person from DU/DI. The chairman of the committee, starting in 2014, has never changed. Following what the head of the committee disclosed during the interview, the School Curriculum does not have a work program and AD / ART (Haerul et al., 2021;Seriyanti et al., 2020). Meetings of school curriculum management members are rarely held. The purpose of establishing the Tengaran 1 SMKN School Committee is to increase community participation in the administration of education (Kepmendiknas). Law number 20 of 2022 clarifies the existence of school committees. The results of the evaluation of the design of the quality report card program at SMKN 1 Tengaran, so far, the committee chairman has announced to all members to be able to prepare time to meet at a meeting to be held at school and will explain the benefits of community participation in improving the quality of education and will have a positive effect on school.
The results of the installation analysis of the quality report card program at SMKN 1 Tengaran can be described as follows. To carry out the goals and programs of the School Curriculum, resources, and facilities are needed to support the implementation of educational quality reports. In the school quality report card, resources consist of human resources, funding, and infrastructure. The study results show that the school's human resources are people who sit in the organizational structure of the school's curriculum administrators. The results of the interviews also show that school curriculum administrators have been formed, but only the head of the curriculum is active. The results of the quality report card installation research carried out through the School Committee can be described as follows. Not all school committee administrators play an active role in carrying out their duties. Only the head of the school committee is actively involved in coordinating with the school, while communication between committee members through regular meetings has never been implemented. The evaluation results of installing the education quality report card program for the Deputy Curriculum will also provide a meeting room for school committee members if they participate in performance socialization. The Deputy Curriculum Deputy also said he would speak to the principal regarding the Provision of facilities and infrastructure for the committee chairman to obtain facilities so that they can play an active role in implementing SBM in improving the quality of education at SMKN 1 Tengaran.
The process of implementing quality report cards at SMKN 1 Tengaran is carried out through the implementation of school-based management. The role of the School Committee as a deliberative body at SMKN 1 Tengaran has been going well. Based on the directorate's standard regarding the School Committee's role as a deliberative body, the SMKN 1 Tengaran committee has not fully fulfilled this role. The results of interviews with committee members and teachers at SMKN 1 Tengaran show that there are still gaps. It can be seen in Figure 1. The national standard is 100%, minus implementing the committee's role as a deliberative body from the committee management group and the teacher group at SMKN 1 Tengaran.

Figure 1. The Gap Between Standards and the Implementation of the Committee's Role as an Advisory Body
The interviews showed that the gap between the standards and the implementation of the committee's role as a body of consideration for the committee respondent group was 42.21%. In contrast, for the school principals and teachers group, it was 46.15%. Data were obtained from interviews with school committee officials that the school committee provided input to schools regarding the budget at the time of the meeting with parents. Then the committee discussed the budget with the community (parents) to then make a decision. The gap analysis results between the implementation of the role of the school committee as a supporting body and the standards set by the directorate are shown in Figure 2. The gap between the national standard and the data gap between the national standard and the School Committee committee interview data obtained a result of 46.4%. Between the standard from the directorate and the teacher, group respondents obtained a result of 46.54%. Interview data shows that the School Committee has a role in implementing school activities. The school committee always supports the budget, but monitoring of the use of the budget and evaluation of the use of the education budget is not carried out, nor is the evaluation of infrastructure support. The school coordinates Sarpras assistance with the head of the committee, but implementation is fully up to the school. The gap analysis results between the implementation of the role of the school committee as a controlling body and the standards set by the directorate are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The Gap Between Standards and Implementation of the Committee's Role as A Controlling Body
The gap between the standard and the implementation of the school quality report card as a controlling body from committee management respondents obtained data of 41.58%, while between the standard and the principal and teacher group respondents obtained data of 44.72%. The interviews found that the School Committee monitors the results of school examinations as a controlling body. Exam results are obtained from the principal's report to the committee chairman. For sarpras, the chairman of the committee provides legality when there is assistance from the government. The management of other committees does not carry out their role as a supervisory body because they have never held regular board meetings. The results of the analysis of the gap in the implementation of the role of the School Committee as a liaison body with standard directorates from respondents to the committee management group obtained data of 32.79%. Data analysis from the principal and teacher group respondents obtained a result of 39.72%. The discrepancy between the committee and teacher respondents shows that implementing the School Committee's role does not work according to national standards. Figure 4 shows the gap between standards and the implementation of the role of the school committee as a liaison body. From the interviews with the chairmen and administrators of the committee, data was obtained that the role of the School Committee as a liaison or mediator had been carried out, even though it was not fully by the standards set by the directorate. The results of the evaluation of the process of implementing quality report cards through school-based management (MBS) curriculum waka will invite all school members, school committee administrators, and parents of students to provide information on the process of preparing the RKAS program or some of the changes that have occurred so that all can feel a sense of ownership and mutual support. Quality report card products at SMKN 1 Tengaran. The results were obtained through an analysis of the implementation of the role of the school committee and the school curriculum. The results showed that the quality report card products through the school committee were in the form of socializing school programs to the community (student parents), legalizing RKAS without going through a meeting between the school committee and the school, legalizing KTSP, legalizing proposals and assistance reports, and monitoring national exam results.
Quality report card products obtained from the analysis of the role of the school committee and school curriculum are the legalization of skill competency test certificates, distribution of graduates is only carried out in one industry, promotion of school existence is only carried out for PT Damatex Salatiga employees, curriculum planning and implementation through internship programs and industry introduction for new students, increasing the competence of educators and non-educators through teacher apprenticeships at PT Damatex and PT Nasmoco but not carried out routinely. Products that have not been implemented are the Development of production units. The results of the evaluation of the process and output of participation in improving school quality report cards, information was obtained from the school principal that he had just moved to SMKN 1, so there would be a lot of implementation processes and changes that would be made in the future by establishing wider cooperation, would maintain the relationship both between schools and committee administrators, school boards, parents of students, school alumni and industry or companies in Salatiga. To achieve the planned goals based on the quality report card participation output product through the implementation of school-based management (SBM) in improving the quality of education.

Discussion
The organizational structure of the school curriculum at Tengaran 1 Vocational High School has been compiled. Still, in terms of membership, it is not following government regulations as stated in the Permendikbud guideline number 56/M/2022 for implementing the 2022 edition of the SMK curriculum that school members are group representatives or individuals from level II regional heads, company associations, professional associations, workers' associations, community leaders, alumni, and relevant related institutions. Besides the school curriculum, the organizational structure of the school committee at SMKN 1 Tengaran has been formed with seven members and administrators. It is not following Government Regulation (PP) No. 4 of 2022, which states that there are at least nine members of the School Committee. Process the formation of the School Committee at SMKN 1 Tengaran through direct appointment from the school while in the Ministry of National Education No. 44 of 2002, the process of forming the School Committee went through the stages; 1) forming a preparatory committee, 2) preparing for formation by holding outreach forums in the community, compiling criteria for prospective members, selecting prospective members, announcing the names of prospective members, compiling the names of elected members, facilitating elected administrators and members, conveying the names of members and administrators to the school principal. This shows that the process of forming a School Committee at SMKN 1 Tengaran is not by Government Regulation (PP) No. 4 of 2022, namely that school committee officials are elected from and by members. The purpose of establishing the school curriculum for SMKN 1 Tengaran is following the government's goal of forming a school curriculum as stated in the 2022 edition of the SMK curriculum implementation guideline that the purpose of forming the school curriculum is to become a means of enhancing functional cooperative relations between SMK and the business/industry world in implementing education and training, facilities for the Development and improvement of quality report cards for vocational education and training processes. Committee SMKN 1 Tengaran does not have AD/ART documents, work programs, meeting minutes, and attendance lists for school committee meetings. The only documents available are minutes of meetings between parents and school committees and a decree (SK) on the organizational structure of the school committee with a validity period of up to 2023. It is not following Permendiknas Number 075/U/2016 dated 2 April 2016 concerning Guidelines for Forming Committees Schools stating that the School Committee is required to have AD/ART. The committee should make AD/ART and a work program to guide all activities. School administrators have not carried out their duties to the fullest. Of all the administrators who are still active, only the chairman is. It is not following the guidelines for implementing the 2022 SMK curriculum, which states that school management must reflect the strength of the aspirations of the business/industry world in particular and the world of work in general and have access to the business/industry world. There is no budget allocation at SMKN 1 Tengaran for implementing school curriculum operational activities, causing organizational activities not to run optimally. There is no budget allocation at SMKN 1 Tengaran for implementing school curriculum operational activities, causing organizational activities not to run optimally. The absence of this budget is not following the guidelines for implementing the 2020 SMK curriculum, which states that in implementing education and training management, schools plan, manage and allocate funds and costs for operational training needs, testing, and certification, program promotion, coordination of school boards with schools, partner institutions, and BP3, for monitoring and the secretariat of the school assembly.
The SMKN 1 Tengaran Committee manager has not carried out their duties optimally because they do not know their administrative positions. Only the head of the School Committee coordinates with the school, especially during parents' meetings with the school. Committee administrators do not know their duties, rights, and obligations because the School Committee does not make AD/ART, which regulates the rights and obligations of committee administrators. It is not following Kepmendikbud No 44 of 2022 that the AD/ART of the school committee contains: 1) name and place of position, 2) basis, objectives, and activities, 3) membership and management, 4) rights and obligations of members and administrators, 5) finance, 6) internal mechanisms and meetings, 7) amendments to AD/ART and dissolution of the organization. Facility support for the operational activities of the School Committee at SMKN 1 Tengaran is also not yet available. It does not follow the school committee performance indicators in the operational guidelines for activities and the school committee performance indicators from the directorate that the organizational facilities of the school committee consist of aspects of human resources (organizational structure and administrative staff), physical office infrastructure (secretariat room, meeting chairs, tables, whiteboards, and data boards), administration and finance (files of incoming and outgoing letters, lists of meeting attendance, minutes of meetings, cash books), data and documents (AD/ART, work programs, operational references, Ministry of National Education No. 75 of 2016, school data, data on parents of students, data on DU/DI and data on learning outcomes).
The research data shows gaps in the implementation of the role of the School Committee as a deliberative body with standards set by the directorate. It is similar to research data obtained from interviews which show that in school planning, the committee is not involved in preparing the RKAS. A chance meeting is never held, while the RKAS committee meeting only conveys the nominal committee fees paid by each student to parents. For the ratification of the RKAS, the research results obtained from interviews and observations show that the school committee's RKAS carries out its role. The study results also show that the School Committee, in carrying out its role as an advisory body regarding implementing the school quality report card program related to the curriculum and school programs, has not been carried out according to standards. The directorate's committee performance indicators in the technical guidelines for strengthening school/madrasah committees in 2011 are 1) Providing input on managing education in schools/madrasahs and 2) Providing input on the learning process to teachers. The fact at SMKN 1 Tengaran is that the School Committee has not provided teachers input on the learning process. From the analysis of the research results on school participation products through the role of the School Committee, it was found that at SMKN 1 Tengaran, the school socialized the school quality report card program and ratified the RKAS. It shows that the School Committee has carried out its role but is not yet following the role and function of the school committee in the elaboration of operational activities contained in the operational guidelines for the performance of the School Committee from the directorate. The product of the school committee, in terms of acting as a liaison body, has just been carried out by submitting complaints and input from the community. The School Committee has yet to communicate with the education board. It is not following the role of the School Committee as a liaison body for the directorate, which states that the School Committee is a liaison between the school, the community, and the education board. There is no analysis regarding the Development of production unit quality report cards. It is not following the curriculum's role in developing production units listed in the 2020 curriculum implementation guide from the national education directorate. The successful implementation of SBM in the learning process requires socialization, openness, motivation, and unification of vision (Patras et al., 2019). However, the less effective implementation of SBM is caused by a lack of good understanding from school stakeholders, which results in low academic achievement (Bandur, 2018). Given the importance of improving teaching methods in schools, it is increasingly important in the era of globalization and educational autonomy. Changes in school management, from centralized management to SBM, so that schools must prioritize the needs of students as customers and stakeholders of education. In terms of school management, the problems of SBM include that schools have not involved many parties or outsiders in making decisions. Teacher awareness of the culture of discipline and responsibility in carrying out the assigned tasks. Therefore, socialization, openness, motivation, and unification of visions greatly affect the success of SBM implementation (Batubara & Ariani, 2018).
Evaluating the implementation of school-based management in improving the quality of education in schools must apply the SBM system with various input or planning stages and process stages by carrying out routine monitoring and evaluation that will affect the results in the form of improving the quality of education in schools (Achadah, 2019; Wahyudi et al., 2020). There is a difference between evaluation and program evaluation. Evaluation is an activity carried out so that all information about how something works is used to determine the right alternative or step for program evaluation (Endah Retno Suci & Aris Widodo, 2022;Fadliah, 2020). The essence of school-based management (SBM) is that it is obligatory to involve the community in managing education so that the community has a sense of empathy for the success of education and realizes that education is a shared responsibility. The school committee is the bridge between the community and the school. Forms of community participation can be poured into the school committee's work program in the organization as a body of consideration, supporter, and mediator (Athiyah, 2019;Wahyudi et al., 2020). The evaluation model used in this study is the Discrepancy evaluation model (DEM) developed by Malcolm Provus (Said et al., 2019;Supriyadi et al., 2022). This evaluation model emphasizes more on the view of the existence of gaps in the implementation of national education quality standards.

CONCLUSION
The implementation of the community participation program has not run according to the standards set by the directorate. School Committees and Curriculum administrators do not play an active role in carrying out their roles. Only the committee chairperson and curriculum head coordinate with the school. The process of implementing community participation programs through the implementation of the role of the School Committee and School Curriculum has been carried out but has not been maximized. As a deliberative body, the School Committee has not identified educational resources in the community and only ratified the RKAS and socialized school programs. Product implementation of the community participation program through the School Committee already exists but is not up to standard. Existing products are in the form of ratification of RKAS, ratification of proposals and assistance reports, and ratification of KTSP. Products that do not yet exist are work program evaluation reports, meeting minutes, budget monitoring results reports, infrastructure, learning outcomes, and the needs of educators as well as reports on identifying learning resources in the community.