Governance mechanisms and the effectiveness of school operational fund management: Evidence from public schools in Indonesia

  • 16 Views
  • 4 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Type of the article: Research Article

Education financing through the School Operational Fund (SOF) program significantly helps overcome challenges in achieving educational goals, both in terms of quantity and quality. In this context, governance mechanisms play a crucial role in evaluating the effectiveness of SOF management. This study examines how governance mechanisms – accountability, transparency, and internal control – influence the effectiveness of SOF management in public primary and secondary schools in Indonesia. Drawing on agency theory, this study addresses the limited empirical evidence on the governance of public education funds in a decentralized education system. Using survey data collected from 216 school principals across 459 public schools in Padang Pariaman Regency, Indonesia, this study applies multiple linear regression to test the proposed relationship. The sample size of 216 was calculated at 95% confidence with a 5% margin of error. The results of this study show that accountability (β = 0.187, p < 0.05), transparency (β = 0.128, p < 0.05), and internal control (β = 0.446, p < 0.05) positively affect the effectiveness of educational operational fund management (SOF). These results support the three proposed research hypotheses. The results of this study highlight the importance of governance mechanisms in mitigating agency problems in publicly funded education programs. This study expands the literature on public sector financial management by providing empirical evidence from a developing country context. It provides policymakers with practical insights to strengthen oversight mechanisms and improve the implementation of educational operational funding programs.

 
view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents
    • Table 2. Descriptive statistics
    • Table 3. Validity test
    • Table 4. Reliability test
    • Table 5. Normality test
    • Table 6. Multicollinearity test
    • Table 7. Glejser test
    • Table 8. Multiple linear regression test
    • Table 9. t-test
    • Table A1. Variables and іndicators
    • Conceptualization
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal, Agung Juliarto
    • Data curation
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal, Agung Juliarto, Wahyu Meiranto
    • Formal Analysis
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal, Wahyu Meiranto
    • Funding acquisition
      Haryanto, Agung Juliarto
    • Investigation
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal
    • Methodology
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal, Agung Juliarto, Wahyu Meiranto
    • Project administration
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal, Wahyu Meiranto
    • Resources
      Haryanto
    • Software
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal, Agung Juliarto, Wahyu Meiranto
    • Supervision
      Haryanto
    • Validation
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal, Agung Juliarto, Wahyu Meiranto
    • Visualization
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal, Agung Juliarto, Wahyu Meiranto
    • Writing – original draft
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal
    • Writing – review & editing
      Haryanto, Biiznihi Taslim, Faisal Faisal, Agung Juliarto, Wahyu Meiranto