The Influence of Cost of Education to the Quality of High School in

Pekanbaru, Indonesia

Sumarno

Study Program of Economic Education,Universitas Riau , Km 12.5 Subrantas Street, Pekanbaru, Indonesia

sumarno.s@lecturer.unri.ac.id

Keywords: cost of education, quality of schools, high school.

Abstract: This research aimed to determine the influence of education costs, which covers operating costs of personal

and operating expenses of non-personal, to the quality of high school. The study was conducted on senior

high schools in Pekanbaru Indonesia the academic year 2014/2015 by sample as much 36 schools. Data

collected by technical documentation and checklists. Data were analysed by descriptive and multiple

regression. The results showed that in partially, operating expenses of non-personnel had a positive and

significant influence to the quality of high schools, while the operating expenses of personnel did not had a

significant influence to the quality of high schools.

1 INTRODUCTION

Education has an important position and role in the

life of the community, nation, and state because

education is directly related to the development of

human resources that will manage other resources

for better human life. Therefore, education must be

organized and are managed well. Moreover, the 21

century was the century of globalization and is the

century of quality (Juran, 1999).

Education quality that is reflected in the

competence of graduates, among others influenced

by the financing component (Djaali, 2007). Arikunto

and Yuliana (2009) also argue that the financing is a

very important factor and determines the life of

educational institutions. Correspondingly these

argue, Sukmadinata, Jamiat, and Rahman (2008)

states that the limited funds, can lead to low quality

of graduates. The Importance of costs for education

and school quality is supported by the results of

research’s Muhroji (2012) which showed that the

cost of education has positive influence on learning

outcomes. Likewise, research results’ Sudarmanto

(2009) which concluded that the social costs and the

private cost which is used to fund education had a

positive and significant impact to student

achievement, either partially or simultaneously.

However, other researches have found different

results, such as Hanushek (1989) who state that

expenditures are not influence to student

performance. Fattah (1999), which concludes his

research findings that in urban areas, overall costs

contribute significantly to the quality of learning

output, while in rural areas the contribution is low;

In well categorized schools, cost of education

contribute high; In medium categorized schools,

contributing low; And in sufficient categorized

schools, cost of education does not contribute

significantly. Moreover, Bibb and McNeal research

(2012) noted that spending per pupil has no

significant relationship to the achievement of high

school students. ikewise, researchs’ Cerya and

Irianto (2014) actually concluded that social costs

did not affect to academic quality. Differences’ in

the results of these studies indicate a need for further

research on the influence of education cost on the

quality of school. This is in line with McMahon,

Suwaryani, and Budiono (2001), which revealed that

research into schools to be able to determine cost

effectiveness, needs to be done.

This research generally aims to know the

influence of education costs to school quality. In

detail the purpose of this research were to know: 1)

The influence of personnel operating costs to school

quality; 2) The influence of cost of non-personnel

operating to school quality; and 3) The influences of

simultaneously personnel operating costs and non-

personnel operating costs to schools quality.

Sumarno, S.

The Inﬂuence of Cost of Education to the Quality of High School in Pekanbaru, Indonesia.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Economic Education and Entrepreneurship (ICEEE 2017), pages 707-713

ISBN: 978-989-758-308-7

707

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Reddy (2007) revealed that The term quality in the

context of education refer to ‘a degree of excellence’

and could include two aspects a judgment of worth

and a position on an implied scale of good/bad.

According to Sallis (2002:15), “excellence is an

aspiration” can be interpreted as an expectation or

desire. It means that the quality that is defined as

the level of excellence have the same meaning with

the notion of quality as the suitability of customer

expectations or desires (Besterfield, 2003; Goetsch

& Davis, 2013. In accord with Adams (1993:7), “At

least six common views of quality appear to be

given by educators: quality as reputation; quality as

resources and inputs; quality as process; quality as

content; quality as outputs and outcomes; and

quality as "value added. In addition to the six quality

views, Williams (2001) added one more that quality

as the selectivity.

Based on a variety of views on the quality, Adam

(1993) argues that the meaning of quality may be

changed according to the context. In accordance

with the context of this study, that will examine the

effect of education costs on school quality, the

quality in this study is more appropriately assessed

as output. This was in accordance opinions Reeves

and Bednar (1994) that comparative and cumulative

research results about quality can be obtained only

by (a) focusing upon the fundamental nature of an

organization's output and (b) using a definition of

quality suitable for that output. School quality was

seen as output, typical measures are achievement in

cognitive skills (Adam, 1993). According to Reddy

(2007), the students’ cognitive achievement is most

often taken as an indicator of school quality. The

same thing also expressed by Williams (2001) that

“substantial body of research in high and low-

income countries has examined factors associated

with student’s cognitive achievement”. To measure

the students’ achievement is done through

standardized tests (Reddy, 2007). According

Tobroni (2010), in Indonesia, in general, student

achievement is measured by national test grade

scores.

Quality of schools is defined as output and is

measured using the cognitive achievement of

students, actually has a meaning focuses on the

expectations and or desires school students as the

main customer. In addition, also pay attention to the

expectations and or desires more customers, both

external and internal are all expected and or desired

that the student or graduate school to get a good

performance so that they can be accepted in the

community or be able to follow education at the next

level. Quality of school as well as in accordance

with the wishes of parents as disclosed by Reddy

(2007:16) that “Parents too, regard the chief

indicator of the quality of a school to be success in

academic achievement which may guarantee some

sort of employability”.

Fattah (2002) divided education financing

according to the party who spends it, which is

budgeter education funding and non-budgeter

education funding. Budgeter education funding is

the cost of education that obtained and spent by the

school as an institution; While non-budgeter

education funding is the cost of education that spent

by students, parents/family, and opportunity cost.

With regard to costs, Mulyono (2010) discloses that

the cost is the amount of money provided or

allocated and used or spent to the execution of

various activities to achieve a goal and objectives.

With regard to the use of fees or type of cost,

Fattah (2002) revealed that based on cost elements

approach (ingredient approach), school expenditure

can be categorized into several items of expenditure

are: 1) Expend-itures for the learning practice, 2)

Expenditures for school management, 3)

Maintenance of school facilities and infrastructure,

4) Employee welfare; 5) Administration, 6)

Educative technical coaching, and 7) Data

Collection.

In contrast to Fattah, according to Wylie and

King (2004), school expenses include: 1) Other

Learning Resources (e.g. curriculum supplies, extra-

curricular, teacher development, minor equipment

and repairs, library); 2) Property Management

(personnel, maintenance, caretaking and cleaning,

grounds, heat, light, water); 3) Administration

(support staff, Board of Trustees fees and expenses,

communication, consumables, audit fees); 4)

Depreciation.

The difference between the two is the

depreciation element according to Wylie and King.

The reasons for Wylie and King include depreciation

as the elements that are taken into account in school

expenses are “Depreciation is the reduction in the

value of a capital asset and represents the portion of

the asset that is “consumed” within a financial year.

A depreciation charge is included as an expenditure

item in schools’ financial statements.

In more detail, Indonesian Government

Regulation No. 48 of 2008 on Education Funding

Article 3 Paragraph (2) states the types of tuition

fees in schools consist of: a. Investment costs,

consisting of: 1) The land investment cost of

education, and 2) investment costs other than

ICEEE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Economic Education and Entrepreneurship

708

education land; b. Operating costs, consisting of: 1)

personnel costs, and 2) non-personnel costs; c.

Education tuition aid; and d. scholarship. When

looking at the cost of education in schools was

according to government regulations, the cost of

education including the cost of capital. Means, the

cost of education in schools needs to take into

account the depreciation costs as a component of

expenditure.

To address differences regarding costs and

expenses, we need to be focused and specific about

what we are talking about and how it are calculated

(Atkinson et.al. 2009). The specification of what

costs are discussed and how to calculate them relates

to the type of costs, which can be generated from

cost objects. The cost object is defined as an item or

activity whose cost is accumulated and measured

(Gitman and Zutter, 2012). This means that the

necessity of taking into account the investment costs

or depreciation costs depending on its purpose, so as

to obtain appropriate calculation results.

The purpose of calculating the cost of education

here is to be able to compare the cost of education

among schools in relation to the school quality. For

this purpose, the costs will be calculated based on

the unit costs per student. According to Fattah

(2002), the unit cost per student is the average cost

per student that are calculated from the total school

expenditures divided by all students in the schools

within a certain time. According to him, because it

takes into account the number of students in each

school, the unit cost per student is considered

standard and can be compared between school one

with other schools. School expenditures by Fattah

(2002) are costs that are not investment costs. From

the explanation, the unit cost per student does not

take into account depreciation expense or investment

cost. That is in accordance with the opinion of

Saavedra (2002:13), that: “... per student expenditure

(or unit costs) ... typically considers only current

expenditures and not capital expenditures. It does

not take into account the capital or investment costs

that can be understood because the capital or

investment of its use in a long time (not just certain

years) so that the cost or capital expenditure for a

particular year is difficult to determine or measure

because in addition to depending on the age of

capital, depending also on the type, and the place of

capital or investment.

In addition, when looking at the age of capital or

investment that is long, the value of the capital is

very likely to change due to price changes, so the

calculation of depreciation expenses in a given year

becomes less/inappropriate, as disclosed Suhardan,

Riduwan, and Enas (2012) that the current capital

expenditure will affect the calculation of routine

costs as long as the physical assets of the school

continue to grow.

From the judgment of the education costs and

that discussion, can be stated that the education cost

of school for the purpose of cost research among

schools, is the unit cost per student whose

calculation is based on the cost or expenditures of

school operating. School operating costs include

personnel and non-personnel costs. Personnel costs

consist of salaries, allowance, and beneficiaries

enhancements; while the non-personnel costs are

other operating costs (not personnel costs).

To achieve better quality, schools need funds to

finance their activities. According to John and

Murpet (Anwar, 2004:122), “when the financial

support is restricted, the quantity and the quality of

education are likely to be limited”. This means that

the funds or costs have a positive affect on the

quality of school. This was in line with the opinions

Checchi (2006) that school quality is influenced by

available resources, including financial resources.

The quality of the school, which in this case is

measured from student achievement, thus also

means that the cost of education has a positive effect

on student achievement. This is in accordance

opinions Reddy (2007: 92) that “levels of cognitive

achievement are significantly improved by provision

of facilities and resources”. From these explanation

can be stated that the cost of education, both

personnel operating costs and non-personnel

operating costs have a positive affect on the quality

of schools.

3 METHODS

This research was conducted at Senior High School

in Pekanbaru, Riau Province, Indonesia, both Public

and Private High School. The unit of analysis in this

study is the school in which each variable is assessed

to obtain their description in the school level. The

population of this study is the high school which in

2015 to take the National Examination of Natural

Sciences Group and Social Sciences Group which

amounted to 40 high school (Public schools as many

as 14 and Private as many as 26). School sample is

taken based on Krejcie & Morgan Table that is

totally 36 schools (13 public school and 23 private

schools), using cluster random sampling technique.

Collecting data were used documentation and

checklists techniques. Documentation were used to

collect data on school quality that is the score of

The Inﬂuence of Cost of Education to the Quality of High School in Pekanbaru, Indonesia

709

national examination of students and data of

education operational cost as stated in Budget and

School Activity Plan. The checklist technique is

used to collect data on the operational costs of

education for schools that were unwilling to provide

their Budget and School Activity Plan. Data were

analysed using multiple regression statistical

techniques.

The variable of this research consists of: 1)

School quality, which is the level of school output

excellence based on the level of students' cognitive

achievement as measured from the Average Score of

Pure National Examination in 2015; 2) Personnel

operating costs, which is funds obtained by schools

from various sources were used for salaries and

allowance of teacher and educational personnel on

the academic year 2014/2015 as measured from the

cost per student; and 3) Non-personnel operating

costs, which is funds obtained by schools from

various sources were used for school operating

expenses other than salaries and allowances on the

academic year 2014/2015 as measured from the cost

per student.

Data were analyzed by using quantitative

descriptive analysis and multiple regression analysis

technique. Descriptive analysis is used to describe

the research variables. Multiple regression analysis

is used to explain the effect of education costs on

quality of school.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of this research will reveal about the

variables of research that are quality of schools,

personal operating cost, and non-personal operating

cost. Beside that, it will reveal the influence of

education costs (personal operating cost and non-

personal operating cost) to quality of school. After

revealing the results of the research, will continued

to discuss these results. The results and discussion

can be shown next.

4.1 Quality of School

School quality were measured by the average score

of national examination (NE) showed the lowest

score of 54.26 and the highest score of 82.85 with an

average score of 70.19. When associated with the

NE passing limit (i.e. 55.00), the lowest score is

smaller than the NE passing limit. That means there

is still a high school in Pekanbaru that has not or

does not achieve quality. The average NE score

achieved by schools is also still below the ideal

average (77.50). This shows that in general the

quality of high school in Pekanbaru is still low. The

distribution of high school quality in Pekanbaru

based on the NE passing limit, generally is still low

as well as based on the average achievement of NE

which is lower than the ideal average. The low

quality generally occurs in private schools.

4.2 Personnel Operating Cost

The operating cost of personnel per student ranges

from Rp1,044,372.- to Rp8,538,930.-

(approximately US$ 78.524 to US$ 642.025) with an

average of Rp4,032,229.- (US$ 303.175). This

shows that the cost incurred by senior high school in

Pekanbaru to pay salary and allowance of teachers

and other education personnel in Academic Year

2014/2015 has a considerable range among schools

that is Rp7,494,558.- with standard deviation of

Rp2,000,776.- (approximately US$ 563.501 and

US$ 150.434). These disparities occur between

private and public schools, of which private schools

rely solely on sources of funding from their students

while public schools are subsidized by the

government. An average indicates that the cost of

operating personnel per student per year is generally

still quite low.

If the personnel operating cost per student is

categorized based on the amount of cost by high

school in Pekanbaru, the distribution of its category

the majority of schools (44.44%) are low, and there

are 13.89% of schools where the cost of personnel

operating is very low. This is in accordance with the

average in which the cost of operating personnel per

high school students in Pekanbaru is still relatively

low.

4.3 Non-Personnel Operating Cost

Non-personnel operating costs per high school

student in Pekanbaru, ranges from Rp1,303,540.- to

Rp5,757,282.- with an average of Rp2,676,157.-

(approximately US$ 98.011 to US$ 432.878 and

US$ 201.215). Viewed from the smallest cost, it

appears that the amount of funds that schools spend

on school operating costs in addition to salaries and

allowances of teachers and other education

personnel, are greater than the operating costs of

personnel. However, seen from the average cost and

the largest expenditure were smaller. Likewise views

from a range of expenditure (Rp4,453,742.- or US$

334.868), it is less than the cost of operating

personnel. This means that the proportion of non-

personnel operating costs for senior high schools in

ICEEE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Economic Education and Entrepreneurship

710

Pekanbaru is smaller, at only 39.89%, than 60.11%

of personal operating costs.

When non-personnel operating costs per student

are categorized based on the amount of costs by

senior high school in Pekanbaru, the distribution of

the frequency of categories shows that most high

schools in Pekanbaru have non-personnel operating

costs very low, as many as 58.33% of schools. This

is in accordance with the average in which the cost

of operating non-personnel per high school students

in Pekanbaru is lower than its personnel operating

costs.

4.4 The Influence of Operating Cost To

School Quality

Based on the results of multiple regression

calculations, the cost of education consisting of

personnel operating costs and non-personnel

operating costs simultaneously have a significant

positive influences to school quality. This is

indicated by the significance coefficient of 0.008

which is smaller than 0.050. The variable of

personnel operating costs and non-personnel

operating costs simultaneously can explain the

school quality variable of 20.9%, as indicated by

Adjusted R square of 0.209.

But partially, the variable operating cost of

personnel did not significantly affect the quality of

school which were the significance coefficient

shows as 0.857 is much greater than 0.05. As well as

the regression coefficients which is very small, that

is only 0.028. However, for non-personnel operating

cost variable has a significance coefficient of 0.003

less than 0.05. This means that non-personnel

operating costs have a signifi-cant positive effect to

school quality. Regression coefficient of variable

non-personal operational costs is 0.495. This means

that any changes to the score of the variable non-

personal operating costs influence to school quality

variables change positively of 0,495. The result of

multiple regression calculation is shown in the table

1 below.

Table 1: The result of regression calculation.

Independent Variables

Standardized Beta

Coefficient

Sig.

Non-Personnel

Operating Cost

.495

.003

Personnel Operating

Cost

.028

.857

4.5 Discussion

The cost of education were consisting of personnel

operating costs and non-personnel operating costs

simultaneously has a positive influence on school

quality. It can be understood because to run

educational activities at school required the funds

will be the cost. The availability of funds to support

the implementation of education activities in schools

will be able to facilitate the activities and

achievement of educational objectives effectively as

revealed Mulyasa (2011) that the financial

components and financing of schools is a component

that determines the implementation of educational

activities. So did John and Murpet who revealed that

“when the financial support is restricted, the quantity

and the quality of education are likely to be limited”

(Anwar, 2004). The achievement of educational

goals in schools, among others, cognitive

achievement of students, will eventually be able to

achieve and or improve the quality of schools, as

disclosed by Reddy (2007) that "level of cognitive

achievement is improved by provision of facilities

and resources". Similarly, Checchi (2006) points out

that school quality is influenced by available

resources including financial resources.

The findings of this study reveal the influence of

education costs to school quality, in line with the

opinion of Djaali (2007) that the quality of national

education reflected in the competence of graduates

of educational units, among others influenced by the

financing component. The influence of education

costs on school quality indicates that the cost of

education is important for the achievement and / or

improvement of school quality. This is also in

accordance with the opinion of Arikunto and

Yuliana (2009) that financing is a very important

factor and determine the life of an organization as

well as educational institutions.

In addition to supporting or in accordance with

these opinions, the results of this research also

supports the results of research conducted Muhroji

(2012) which shows that the cost of education has a

positive effect on learning output. The output in

Muhroji’s research is the indicator of school quality

in this research. Similarly, the result of research

conducted Sudarmanto (2009) which concluded that

the social cost and private cost which used for the

cost of education have a positive and significant

impact on student achievement. The learning

achievement is also a learning output which

conceptually becomes an indicator of this study.

The variable of operating cost of education

which can only explain the school quality variable of

The Inﬂuence of Cost of Education to the Quality of High School in Pekanbaru, Indonesia

711

20.9% (Adjusted R square of 0.209) indicates that

the contribution of education operating cost variable

to school quality variable is relatively small. It can

be understood because the factors that influence the

quality of the school were quite a lot, so that the

variable of cost of education is only part of the many

factors that affect the quality of school. Factors

affecting the quality of schools are process, content,

teachers and education person-nel, facilities and

infrastructure, management, financing, and

educational assessment (Djaali, 2007); Individual

(child) characteristics, Supporting inputs, Enabling

conditions, and Teaching and learning processes

(Heneveld et.al. in Williams, 2001); The managerial

quality of education leaders, shortage of funds,

facilities and infrastructure, educational facilities,

media, learning resources, training tools and

materials, school climate, educational environment,

and support from education-related parties

(Sukmadinata, Jami'at and Ahman, 2008). Each of

these factors has an influence on the quality of

school so that the influence of educational cost

factors on the quality of school to be small.

The cost of education in the form of personnel

operating costs partially did not significantly affect

to the quality of schools. Such results are thought to

be due to personnel operating costs not directly

related to the process of educational activities in

schools. This is in accordance with the opinion of

Bridge, Judd, and Moock (1979) which states that

the expenditure per student affects the attaining of

student achievement is positively indirectly through

something purchased or funded by the school. In

addition, personnel operating cost are salaries and

allowances paid to teachers and education personnel

only on the basis of working time or the number of

teaching hours so as not to be directly related to the

activities of teachers or other education personnel.

This means that salaries and allowance are not

related to whether or not the quality of the activity

process (teaching and learning process for teachers

and the process of student learning service for the

educa-tion personnel), so it does not affect the

quality of learning output. This is according to the

results of research stating that the components of

salary costs have no significant affect to the quality

of learning outputs or quality of education (Kadir,

2005 and Fattah, 1999)

Cost of education in the form of non-personnel

operating costs partially have a positive and

significant impact to the quality of schools. This is

understandable as non-personnel operating costs are

the expenses for teaching and learning activities and

student learning services such as consumable

teaching and learning facilities and tools (Mulyasa,

20110) as well as teaching materials and books

(OECD, 2011). The availability of tools and

materials as well as learning books that are used

directly in the learning will help students in learning

activities and make it easier to understand the

learning materials so that the learning output to be

better. This is in accordance with the opinion of

Barret et al. (2007) and Reddy (2007) that the

availability of textbooks and other learning materials

has a very significant and positive impact on student

learning outputs or cognitive achievement levels. As

well as Mathias, Meyers, and Rogers (2014) who

noted that the investment through teaching and

practice, the stronger the relationship between

investment and student performance.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Results of this research highlighted: first, the cost of

education in the form of personnel operating costs

partially has no significant to the quality of schools.

Second, the cost of education in the form of non-

personnel operating costs partially have a positive

and significant influence to the quality of schools.

Personnel operating cost and non-personnel

operating costs as education costs simultaneously

have a positive and significant influence to the

quality of school.

The implications of the results of this research

are the personnel operating cost in the form of

allowances should be paid to teachers and education

personnel based on the results and/or quality of their

performance. Non-personnel operating costs are

increased in its amount and/or proportion so that

learning activities can be increased in quantity and

quality. Total non-personnel operating costs are

increased through school funding sources, both from

communities and government.

REFERENCES

Adams, D. 1993. Defining Educational Quality in

Improving Educational Quality Project. Arlington:

Institute for International Research, 1993.

Anwar, Moch. Idochi. 2004. Administrasi Pendidikan &

Manajemen Biaya Pendidikan: Teori, Konsep, dan Isu.

Bandung: Alfabeta.

Arikunto, Suharsimi dan Yuliana, Lia. 2009. Manajemen

Pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Aditya Media.

Atkinson, Anthony A. et.al. 2009. Akuntansi Manajemen.

translated Miranti Kartika Dewi. Jakarta: PT Indeks.

ICEEE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Economic Education and Entrepreneurship

712

Barrett, Angeline et. al. 2007. Initiatives to Improve the

Quality of Teaching and Learning: A Review of Recent

Literature. http://unesdoc. unesco.org/ (accessed

March 29, 2013).

Besterfield, Dale H. et al. 2003. Total Quality

Management. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bibb, William E. & McNeal, Larry. 2012. The

Relationship between Per Pupil Expenditures and

Student Achievement in Tennessee. American

International Journal of Contemporary Research. Vol.

2 No. 3, 191-198.

Bridge, R. G., Judd, C. M. & Moock, P. R. 1979. The

Determinants of Educational Outcomes; the Impact of

Families, Peers, Teachers, and Schools. Cambridge:

Ballinger Publishing Company.

Cerya, Efni & Irianto, Agus. 2014. Pengaruh Biaya Sosial

Dan Individu Terhadap Penyelenggaraan

Pembelajaran Dan Mutu Akademik SMA Negeri Di

Daerah Perkotaan Provinsi Sumatera Barat. Jurnal

Kajian Pendidikan Ekonomi, Vol. 1, No. 1, 20-27.

Checchi, Daniele. 2006. The Economics of Education:

Human Capital, Family Background, and Inequity.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohn, Elchanan & Geske, Terry G. 2004. The Economic

of Education. Ohio: South-Western College.

Djaali. 2007. Peningkatan Mutu Pendidikan Nasional

Melalui Program Sertifikasi, Buletin BSNP, Vol. II /

No. 2.

Fattah, Nanang. 1999. Analisis Hubungan Pembiayaan

Pendidikan Sekolah Dasar dengan Mutu Proses dan

Hasil Belajar. Mimbar Pendidikan No. 3/XVIII/1999,

51-56, http://file.upi.edu/ (accessed October 20, 2012).

Fattah, Nanang. 2002. Ekonomi dan Pembiayaan

Pendidikan. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Gitman, Lawrence J. & Zutter, Chad J. 2012. Principle of

Managerial Finance. Boston: Prentice Hall.

Goetsch, David L. & Davis, Stanley B. 2013. Quality

Management for Organizational Excellence:

Introduction to Total Quality. New Jersey: Pearson

Education Inc.

Hanushek, Eric A. 1989. The Impact of Differential

Expenditures on School Performance. Educational

Reseacher, May 1989, 45-62.

Juran, J.M. 1999. 1999. Juran’s Quality Handbook, How

to Think about Quality, eds. Joseph M. Juran et al.

New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Kadir, Abdul. 2005. Program Pembiayaan Pendidikan

Dalam Meningkatkan Mutu Hasil Belajar SMP Negeri

di Kabupaten Bengkalis. Tugas Akhir Magister

Profesional. Sekolah Pascasarjana Institut Pertanian

Bogor.

Mathias, M. B., Meyers, H. B., & Rogers, J. D. 2014.

Spending and Student Achievement: Money Matters

When Equity is at Issue. A Publication of The

University of Vermont James M. Jeffords Center.

Issue Brief Vol 4, No 1, 1-5.

McMahon, Walter W. Suwaryani, Nanik & Budiono.

2001. Improving Education Finance in Indonesia.

Policy Research Center, Institute for Research and

Development, MONE, and UNICEF and UNESCO,

2001.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/.../IndonCh%200%20Content

Preface. Exec... (Accessed Augustus 12, 2012).

Mulyasa, E. 2011. Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah: Konsep,

Strategi, dan Implementasi. Bandung: Remaja

Rosdakarya.

Mulyono. 2010. Konsep Pembiayaan Pendidikan.

Jogjakarta: Ar-Ruzz Media.

Muhroji. 2012. Pengaruh Sarana Dan Biaya Pendidikan

Terhadap Hasil Belajar Di Sekolah Menengah. Jurnal

Pendidikan Ilmu Sosial, Vol. 22, No. 2, December

2012, 93-102.

OECD. 2012. Public and Private Schools: How

Management and Funding Relate to their Socio-

economic Profile. OECD Publishing.

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ (accessed September 1,

2012).

OECD. 2011. Education at a Glance 2011: OECD

Indicators. OECD Publishing.

http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/

48631582.pdf, (accessed March 20, 2014).

Indonesian Government Regulation No. 48 of 2008 on

Education Funding.

Reddy, Sujata. 2007. School Quality: Perspectives from

the Developed and Developing Countries. Bangalore:

Azim Premji Foundation.

Reeves, Carol A. & Bednar, David A. 1994. Defining

Quality: Alternatives and Implications. Academy of

Management Review, 1994, Vol. 19. No. 3, 419-445.

Saavedra, Jorge. 2002. Education Financing in

Developing Countries: Level and Sources of Funds.

New York: Word Bank Institute.

Sallis, Edward. 2002. Total Quality Management in

Education. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Sudarmanto, R. Gunawan. 2009. Pengaruh Pembiayaan

Pendidikan terhadap Kualitas Pelaksanaan

Pembelajaran dan Prestasi Belajar Siswa Sekolah

Menengah Kejuruan Ekonomi Di Bandar Lampung,

Disertasi, Program Studi Pendidikan Ekonomi,

Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Malang.

2009. http://karya-ilmiah.um.ac.id/. (accessed October

20, 2012)

Suhardan, Dadang. Riduwan, & Enas. 2012. Ekonomi dan

Pembiayaan Pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Sukmadinata, Nana Syaodih; Jami’at, Ayi Novi dan

Ahman. 2008. Pengendalian Mutu Pendidikan

Sekolah Menengah: Konsep, Prinsip, dan Instrumen.

Bandung: PT Refika Aditama.

Tobroni. 2010. Teori-Teori Mengukur Mutu Sekolah.

http://tobroni.staff.umm.ac.id/2010/11/25/ teori-teori-

tentang-mutu-sekolah/. (Accessed May 2, 2015).

The Inﬂuence of Cost of Education to the Quality of High School in Pekanbaru, Indonesia

713