Evaluating the Effectiveness of the KP4 Model for School Governance Quality Improvement: The Role of School Management and Community Participation in 3T Regions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31605/cjee.v4i1.6367Keywords:
Participative Leadership, Collaborative Planning, School Governance, Community Participation, 3T RegionsAbstract
This study examines the effectiveness of the KP4 model comprising participative leadership, collaborative planning, inclusive organization, and community based monitoring and evaluation in improving school governance in a 3T (underdeveloped, frontier, and outermost) context. Employing a mixed methods approach Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, followed by qualitative analysis to explain the statistical trends. Integration was conducted through connecting and merging procedures, where interview findings were used to interpret and validate quantitative results, the study integrates quantitative data from 30 respondents with qualitative insights from in depth interviews involving eight key informants, including school leaders, teachers, administrative staff, and community representatives. Quantitative findings reveal an overall mean score of 3.957, indicating that the implementation of the KP4 model is effective and approaches a “very good” level. The strongest dimensions are collaborative planning and participative leadership, which significantly enhance stakeholder engagement and organizational coherence. Qualitative findings further confirm that the model fosters shared responsibility, strengthens school–community collaboration, and promotes a transparent and inclusive organizational culture. However, the monitoring and evaluation dimension remains relatively underdeveloped, particularly in terms of data-driven and technology-supported practices. The study contributes to the literature by proposing an integrative governance model that aligns leadership, organizational processes, and community participation, particularly in resource constrained educational settings. The findings suggest that the KP4 model can serve as a scalable framework for improving school quality, although further development of digital based evaluation systems is necessary to ensure sustainability.
References
Arar, K., & Nasra, M. A. (2020). Linking school-based management and school effectiveness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218775428
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bush, T. (2018). Transformational leadership and school improvement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217728083
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2018). Professional collaboration with purpose: Teacher learning towards equitable and excellent schools. In Routledge.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hallinger, P. (2011a). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.01.001
Hallinger, P. (2011b). Leadership for learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.
Hasanah, U., Ampry, E. S., A.M, M. I., Harpiani, S., Anas, M., Resa, A., Hasbahuddin, Mithhar, Waqif, A., & Aslam. (2025). Integrasi Nilai Kepemimpinan Autentik dalam Praktik Supervisi Akademik: Strategi Menuju Sekolah Bermutu di SDN 50 Cendana. Celebes Journal of Elementary Education, 3(2), 146–151.
Ivankova, N. V, Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X99355003
Miles, M. B., Suberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
OECD. (2023). Education at a glance 2023. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2023-en
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 44(5), 635–674.
Sallis, E. (2012). Total quality management in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417014
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2015a). Direction-setting leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(3), 499–536.
Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2015b). Direction-setting school leadership practices. Educational Research Review, 16, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.002
Wohlstetter, P., & Odden, A. (1992). Rethinking school-based management policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(4), 529–549.
World Bank. (2018). World development report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1
