Abstract
This paper aims to explain the effect of school management on entrepreneurship and literacy education in vocational secondary education students (Indonesian: SMK). However, school management itself is estimated to be influenced by various factors which are also described in this paper, including: competence of school principals, curriculum development, entrepreneurship training, community participation, and local potential. The research sample was conducted at 14 vocational schools in 7 (seven) provinces in Indonesia, with a sample size of 824 students. Data collection was carried out through questionnaires, interviews, and FGD. In particular, questionnaires were distributed to students who had previously been tested to determine the validity and reliability of the existing questions, using Person and Cronbach Alpha criteria. The research analysis used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with the help of the Lisrel 8.70 program. The results showed that school management in entrepreneurship education was influenced by factors or variables of school principal competence, entrepreneurship curriculum, entrepreneurship training, community participation, and local potential. Furthermore, school management influences the management of teacher competence, learning facilities, and the application of entrepreneurship education in developing student entrepreneurial literacy. It is suggested that entrepreneurship education be an element in the vision, commitment and seriousness of school management. On the other hand, it is necessary to pay attention to the indicators that contribute the strongest value to each of the factors or variables that affect school management, and variables that are influenced by school management.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship, Competence, Curriculum, Training, Local potential, Literacy.
Received: 7 September 2020 / Revised: 25 September 2020 / Accepted: 5 October 2020/ Published: 21 October 2020
Contribution/ Originality
School management in entrepreneurship education cannot be separated from the influence of school principal leadership, entrepreneurship curriculum development, entrepreneurship training, community participation, and local potential. This influence factor becomes the basis for determining the vision and goals of school management in entrepreneurship education, especially in relation to the management of teacher competencies and the provision of learning support facilities. This will lead to the development of entrepreneurial literacy, and become the basis for students to apply after completing their studies.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Indonesian government continues to increase the number of entrepreneurs to achieve the ideal amount compared with the total population of 265 million people. Economists argue that the economic resilience of a country can be seen from the ratio of the number of entrepreneurs in the population (Bisnis, 2019). On average, developed countries that have a stable economy have a ratio of 14 percent are entrepreneurs compared to the total population. In Indonesia the ratio is still relatively low. Data from the Central Statistics Agency (2019) notes that the number of entrepreneurs in Indonesia has increased from 1.56 percent in 2014, and increased to 3.1 percent in 2016 with a population of 265 million. This number of entrepreneurs still needs to accelerate its increase.
In simple terms, entrepreneurs can be defined as people who take advantage of opportunities in developing their business. As stated by Scarborough and Zimmerer (2005) an entrepreneur is a person who creates a new business with the aimed of achieving profit and growth by identifying opportunities and utilizing existing resources. One type of entrepreneurship is a small and medium enterprise which is not only resilient in responding to the challenges of shocks to the national economy, but is also expected to be able to overcome unemployment which is increasing every year, especially in secondary education. Central Statistics Agency (2019) recorded that the number of unemployed secondary education graduates in 2014 was 3,295,307 people, and in 2018 it increased to 3,662,063 people. In 2020 the number of unemployed will certainly increase again, especially due to the Covid-19 pandemic with many layoffs in various forms of small, medium and large companies. The growth of small and medium enterprises in the non-formal sector is encouraged as an alternative to absorb and overcome this labor problem.
To increase the number of entrepreneurs, various methods are used by the government, one of which is by providing capital assistance. In secondary and tertiary education, entrepreneurship is taught with the aim of attracting students to enter the non-formal sector business after graduation. At the secondary education level, especially Vocational High Schools (SMK), entrepreneurship education can be held monolithically, but it can also be integrated into several subjects. Additionally, entrepreneurship education is expected to develop an entrepreneurial culture with traits: independence oriented, sensitive to environmental potential, work hard, take risks, be honest, be open to science and technology, fostering cooperation with businesses, and more.
The reality is that entrepreneurship education has not been able to make secondary education graduates (especially SMK) to be independent. SMK graduates prefer to find work in the formal sector (public and private), even though the opportunity is very small. Entrepreneurship education does not encourage graduates to become entrepreneurs, instead they tend to choose odd jobs, become illegal parking attendants, construction workers, or others. Then, why entrepreneurship education in schools cannot attract independent students to do business in the non-formal sector?
The suspicion is that the school is not serious about instilling this entrepreneurial mentality, and puts more emphasis on developing the skills of graduates to fill jobs in the formal sector. For this reason, the school implements the teaching factory program with the aim of providing student skills according to real experiences in the business world and industrial world (DUDI). The situation that occurs is greater supply than demand for vocational graduates, so that many of them become unemployed. On the other hand, entrepreneurship education is less serious and focused on equipping students with sensitive abilities to environmental potential, fostering cooperation with business actors, teaching entrepreneurial practices inside and outside of school, providing entrepreneurial management skills, and others. The implementation of this learning by teachers (especially involving several teachers of different subjects) is largely determined by the seriousness of the school in managing this entrepreneurship education.
It is necessary to explicitly pay attention to the implementation of school management in supporting entrepreneurship education? However, school management itself is thought to be influenced by various factors, including: entrepreneurial competence of school principals, entrepreneurship curriculum, entrepreneurship training, community participation, and local potential. On this basis, the paper wants to explain the influence of these factors on school management. Next, we want to explain the effect of school management on entrepreneurship education, teacher competence, and the use of learning facilities in generating student entrepreneurial literacy. Literacy development of entrepreneurship as the basis for an independent student and apply this informal business sector.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Management can be defined as the process of planning and decision making, organizing, and controlling an organization, information, finance, and resources to achieve organizational goals efficiently and effectively (Luthans, 2014; Robbins, 2006; Usman, 2016; Wibowo, 2013). Implicitly, management is the process of organizing or managing an organization in a planned and controlled manner to achieve certain goals.
On that basis, school management can be defined as the process of managing all elements of education in schools, both physical and non-physical, human and non-human, teaching and non-teaching, in a planned, orderly, integrated, supervised, and controlled manner to achieve certain goals. One of the elements in school management is entrepreneurship education as learning that aims to develop entrepreneurial literacy, so that students can be independent and apply it after completing their education. Through entrepreneurship education, students are no longer looking for jobs in the formal sector, but instead create their own businesses in the non-formal sector. Entrepreneurship education seeks to make students creative and innovative by developing ideas and gathering resources to find opportunities and improve lives (Isrososiawan, 2013).
School management in entrepreneurial education includes the importance of vision and policy, supporting facilities, curriculum, and others. Therefore, school management in entrepreneurship education is influenced by various factors, including the competence of school principals (particularly entrepreneurial competencies), entrepreneurship curriculum, entrepreneurship training, community participation, and local potential.
Competence is a set of knowledge, skills, and behaviors that must be possessed, valued, mastered, and actualized in carrying out their duties (Regulation of the Minister of National Education No.13, 2007; Wibowo, 2013). Regarding school management, school principals must not only have the competence to manage the educational institutions they lead, but must also have entrepreneurial competence (Regulation of the Minister of National Education No.16, 2007). Entrepreneurial competence is a set of knowledge, skills and behaviors that the principal must possess, appreciate, master, and actualize in carrying out his duties to increase the self-confidence of school members, be optimistic, creative, innovative, disciplined, committed, initiative, active, achievement-oriented, forward-looking; and dare to take calculated risks. Thus, the entrepreneurial competence factor is thought to affect the management of principals in entrepreneurship education, in the form of visions and policies that encourage and foster entrepreneurship among school members (especially students), foster creativity, innovation, so that students can apply it.
Another factor is the entrepreneurial curriculum which is considered to influence school management. The curriculum is a set of plans and arrangements regarding objectives, content and learning materials as well as methods used as guidelines in implementing learning activities to achieve certain goals (Hermawan, 2018; Hidayat, 2013; Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number, 2003). The entrepreneurship curriculum is a set of learning plans to achieve students' entrepreneurial literacy and mental goals so that later students can apply them. Entrepreneurship curriculum development needs to be done, especially in line with the utilization of local potential. School management regarding entrepreneurship education will be easier, smoother, and understood by students if it comes from local potential. In developing the entrepreneurship curriculum, it should cover sub-aspects: types of local potential, learning objectives and materials, learning methods / approaches, commercial value, production processes, marketing processes, and so on.
Other factors suspected to affect the management of the school is training in entrepreneurship. Training is a teaching process to improve the skill to do something (Dessler, 2015; Ivancevich, 2007; Mathis & Jackson, 2012). Entrepreneurship training is obtained from outside the school to complement knowledge and skills outside formal education. Training can be provided in the following aspects: identification of business potential, business management and organization, production training, marketing training, fostering cooperative relationships, and so on. Application of business skills training needs to be programmed in a systematic and disciplined in school management, as one of the supporting aspects of entrepreneurship education. The training program involves analysis on training needs, identification of objectives and training criteria, designing instruction training, the content of the training program, implement programs, and evaluate the results.
The school management also need to consider the circumstances surrounding communities suspected of influencing and supporting entrepreneurship education, especially business people and industry. Community participation is the involvement of people / groups who voluntarily participate in entrepreneurship education carried out by schools. This involvement includes the mentality and emotions to be responsible and support the achievement of the objectives of providing entrepreneurship education (see: (Davis, 2014; Huneryear & Hecman, 2009)). Community participation can be realized in capital assistance, production equipment assistance, production training / apprenticeship, marketing guidance, suppliers of needed by business and industrial actors, and others.
School management in entrepreneurship education needs to pay attention to local potential, namely the abilities, strengths, or resources of an area or place (physical or social) that can be developed to produce certain benefits and profits (Mustangin, Desy Kusniawati, Islami, Setyaningrum, & Prasetyawati, 2017; Safitri, 2018; Septiani, 2017) . Various local potentials that can be developed, exploited, and provide benefits, both from land areas (such as mining, forestry, plantations, fishponds, etc.), coastal and marine areas (such as: fisheries, pearl farming, seaweed cultivation, etc.), tourism development, arts (dance, music, sculpture, sculpture, painting, etc.), crafts, and so on. Allegedly, school management that ignores the influence of local potential in entrepreneurship education which is beneficial for business prospects tends to be less able to instill literacy and business mentality in students. The results of entrepreneurship education are limited to knowing and understanding theory and practice, but it does not increase interest and desire to be work and life oriented.
The factors above are strongly suspected to influence school management, and furthermore, school management will influence entrepreneurship education in schools. Entrepreneurship education is a planned and applicable effort to increase the knowledge, interests and competences of students to develop their potential, realize creative, innovative and risk management behavior (Suyitno, 2013). Entrepreneurship education aims to form independent students through a mindset and provision of competence and skills to behave as entrepreneurs and answer future challenges. Entrepreneurship education encompasses both theoretical and practical, but emphasizes the identification of opportunities (especially local potential), strategy development, and allocation of resources (Knight, 1987). Strictly speaking, entrepreneurship education must equip students with the knowledge and skills to start a new business as an alternative, creative, innovative, and have business management skills (market analysis, planning, strategy, and others), as well as mastery of communication and information technology (Alberti, Poli, & Sciascia, 2004; DeTienne & Chandler, 2004; Heinonen & Sari-Anne Poikkijoki, 2006; Hisrich & Peters, 2002; Hynes & Richardson, 2008).
Apart from school management factors, other factors that are thought to influence the success or failure of entrepreneurship education are teacher competence and learning facilities. Teacher competence in entrepreneurship education is the ability to carry out roles, functions and tasks by integrating and building personal knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that can be observed and applied critically for the success of learning objectives (Boyatzis, 2008; Roe, 2001; Ruky, 2003). Entrepreneurship learning facilities are all necessary to facilitate, smooth and support entrepreneurial learning activities in order to achieve satisfactory results (Daradjat, 2013; Mulyasa, 2006). In Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 19 of 2005 it emphasizes the importance of every school having facilities and infrastructure that meet the standards to support an orderly and sustainable learning process. Of course, entrepreneurship education requires different learning facilities.
All of the above leads to efforts to develop student entrepreneurial literacy, which are expected to be applied after graduating. On that basis built a theoretical framework to approach and explain the problems being studied see Figure 1. The proposed research hypothesis:
- Principal competences, entrepreneurship curriculum, entrepreneurship training, community participation, and local potential have an influence on school management.
- School management has an influence on teacher competence, learning facilities, and entrepreneurship education.
- Entrepreneurship education has an influence on the development of students' entrepreneurship literacy.
- Entrepreneurship literacy has an influence on entrepreneurship application.
Figure-1. Theoretical framework the influence factors of school management in developing entrepreneurship literacy in vocational education.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Location and Sample of Respondents
This paper is the result of research conducted in March - May 2020 on public vocational high school (SMK) students in 7 provinces in Indonesia, namely: South Sumatra, DKI Jakarta, West Java, East Java, Bali, South Sulawesi, and East Kalimantan. From each location 2 (two) SMK and 2 (two) skills competency for each school were taken as research samples. The sample of skills competency at SMK was selected purposively with the criteria considered to be able to be used as an independent business after the students had completed their studies. In general, each skills competency class has a student ratio of 1:40. From each school, a sample of 30 class XI students was taken through random techniques Table 1. This means that every class XI student from the chosen field of expertise has the same opportunity to become a research sample.
3.2. Data Collection
Data was collected by questionnaires, interviews, and focus group discussion (FGD). The questionnaire for students contained interest in entrepreneurship, responses to entrepreneurship education in schools, the potential for the local environment, the desire to become entrepreneurs, and others. Before the questionnaire was carried out in the actual field research, 30 students were tested to determine the level of validity and reliability using the product moment criteria from Pearson and Cronbach Alpha with the help of SPSS version 24.0. Only question items that proved valid and reliable were used, whereas the opposite was discarded. Interviews and focus group discussions conducted with on-line. Interviews addressed to some vocational school principals, while FGD participants followed by principals, teachers, education department officials, superintendent of education, and business and industry.
Table-1. Sample of skills competency, number of schools, and number of students.
| No. | Province | Skills Competency | School |
Students |
| 1. | Sumatera Selatan |
|
4 |
120
|
| 2. | DKI Jakarta |
|
4 |
120 |
| 3. | Jawa Barat |
|
4 |
120 |
| 4. | Jawa Timur |
|
4 |
120 |
| 5. | Bali |
|
4 |
120 |
| 6. | Sulawesi Selatan |
|
4 |
120 |
| 7 | Kalimantan Timur |
|
4 |
120 |
| Total | 28 |
840 |
3.3. Analysis Technique
Research analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with the help of Lisrel program 8.70. The analysis mainly includes CFA to determine the validity and reliability of question items related to the research indicators, GOF models, the structure of the relationship of the variables studied, and the contribution of the indicators for each variable (Ferdinand, 2002; Hair, William, Black Ba, & Babin, 2010; Haryono & Wardoyo, 2017; Joreskog & Sorborn, 1993; Kusnendi, 2009).
4. FINDINGS
4.1. Characteristic Respondent
Only 824 questionnaires were returned by students with details of 635 (77.06%) male and 189 (22.94%) female. Of those students in the province of South Sumatra, South Sulawesi, and Samarinda, each of the two people do not return the questionnaires, each three (3) people from Jakarta and West Java, and 4 (four) of East Java province. After cleaning, the questionnaire returned by the students was declared feasible to be processed and analyzed in this study. Most students answered that they came from underprivileged families, and chose vocational education in order to have skills and work quickly. As many as 15.25% stated that they wanted to continue their education to a higher level after graduating, 24.03% of students wanted to work first and finance themselves to continue their education, 34.59% felt that they were not smart and able to continue their education again, and 26.13% answered doubt and did not know. When asked about entrepreneurship education received in schools, 15.17% answered that it was not in accordance with skill competence, 30.95% were less interested in becoming entrepreneurs, 39.08% did not have talent, 8.25% did not have the capital and experience, 6, 55% don't know. Most (72.20%) students stated that entrepreneurship education in schools must be in line with local potential and its utilization. As many as 50.36% answered that they would enter the business world in the non-formal sector if they did not get a job in the formal sector and received capital assistance, while 49.54% answered they did not know CFA (Validity Reliability).
Table-2. Validity and Reliability Results.
| Variables | Indicators | SLF |
ei |
CR |
VE |
Conclusion |
| Leadership | x1 = Entrepreneurship competence | 0.95 |
0.10 |
|||
| Competence | x2 = Leadership experience | 0.85 |
0.28 |
0.897 |
0.743 |
Valid & reliabel |
| LC | x3 = Understanding of local potential | 0.85 |
0.43 |
|||
| Entrepreneurship | x4 = Curriculum development | 0.90 |
0.20 |
|||
| Curriculum | x5 = Provision of sylabus / modules | 0.98 |
0.05 |
0.934 |
0.825 |
Valid & reliabel |
| EC | x6 = Relevant learning facility set | 0.85 |
0.28 |
|||
| Entrepreneurship | x7 = Management and organization training | 0.89 |
0.20 |
|||
| Training | x8 = Production training | 0.95 |
0.09 |
0.939 |
0.836 |
Valid & reliabel |
| ET | x9 = Marketing training | 0.90 |
0.20 |
|||
| Community | x10 = Capital assistance | 0.83 |
0.31 |
|||
| Participation | x11 = Production assistance | 0.89 |
0.21 |
0.929 |
0.813 |
Valid & reliabel |
| CP | x12 = Business supplier | 0.98 |
0.04 |
|||
| Local | x13 = Stakeholder coordination | 0.84 |
0.29 |
|||
| Potential | x14 = Identification of business prospects | 0.95 |
0.09 |
0.924 |
0.803 |
Valid & reliabel |
| LP | x15 = Development of teaching materials | 0.89 |
0.21 |
|||
| School | x16 = Vision of entrepreneurship education | 0.76 |
0.42 |
|||
| Management | x17 = Manage local potential | 0.78 |
0.38 |
0.913 |
0.727 |
Valid & reliabel |
| SM | x18 = Provision of experts / instructors | 0.85 |
0.28 |
|||
| x19 = Development of external cooperation | 1.00 |
0.01 |
||||
| Teacher | x20 = mastery of the curriculum | 0.90 |
0.19 |
|||
| Competence | x21 = Coordination of learning | 0.89 |
0.22 |
0.902 |
0.755 |
Valid & reliabel |
| TC | x22 = Support of learning practices | 0.82 |
0.33 |
|||
| Learning | x23 = Complete facilities | 0.92 |
0.15 |
|||
| Facility | x24 = Utilization of environmental potential | 0.86 |
0.27 |
0.853 |
0.664 |
Valid & reliabel |
| LF | x25 = Support from business and industry actors | 0.64 |
0.59 |
|||
| Entrepreneurship | x26 = Deepening of teaching materials | 0.94 |
0.11 |
|||
| Education | x27 = Local potential-based production practice | 0.97 |
0.06 |
0.950 |
0.863 |
Valid & reliabel |
| EE | x28 = Marketing system | 0.87 |
0.24 |
|||
| Entrepreneurship | x29 = Competence and entrepreneurial skills | 0.75 |
0.44 |
|||
| Literacy | x30 = Improve the welfare of life | 0.91 |
0.18 |
0.926 |
0.759 |
Valid & reliabel |
| EL | x31 = Creativity in business | 0.87 |
0.25 |
|||
| x32 = Job orientation | 0.95 |
0.10 |
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is one of the widely used validity and reliability tests. CFA is used to test unidimensional, validity and reliability of construct measurement models that cannot be measured directly or also called descriptive measurement theory models or confirmatory factor models that show the operationalization of variables or research constructs into measurable indicators formulated in the form of equations and / or specific path charts (Ferdinand, 2002; Hair et al., 2010; Haryono & Wardoyo, 2017; Joreskog & Sorborn, 1993; Kusnendi, 2009; Sarjono & Yulainita, 2019). The purpose of the CFA is to confirm or test the model, which is a measurement model whose formulation is derived from theory. CFA can be said to have two focuses, namely: whether indicators that are conceptualized are unidimensional, precise, and consistent; and what are the dominant indicators that make up the construct under study.
The CFA should be implemented as a test of validity to determine whether the indicator variable actually forms the latent variable being studied (Hair et al., 2010; Haryono & Wardoyo, 2017). The validity test is related to the measurement of variables so they are valid or not. The validity test is done by comparing the loading factor to a minimum of 0.5. If the load factor value is greater than 0.5 then the indicator is valid. Reliability tests show how well the gauge can produce relatively similar results if repeated measurements on the same object. Reliability values were measured with Construct Reliability (CR) and Variance Extract (VE). It is said to be reliable if CR values> 0.70 and VE> 0.50. Error measurement (ei) is intended to overcome the effect of parameter estimators and large or small size variances provided that the higher the loading factor value means the smaller the error value, thus indicating that the indicator truly reflects the latent variable. Below is shown the results of the validity and reliability of the indicators of each variable studied Table 2.
4.2. Goodness of Fit Models
Goodness of fit is a test of the suitability or goodness of certain observations (observation frequency) and the frequency obtained is based on the expected value (theoretical frequency). Structural model analysis in SEM begins with testing the suitability of the overall model as seen based on statistical indicators from the LISREL output (Ferdinand, 2002; Hair et al., 2010; Haryono & Wardoyo, 2017; Joreskog & Sorborn, 1993; Kusnendi, 2009; Sarjono & Yulainita, 2019). Summary of overall model fit test critical value can be seen in Table 3.
Table-3. The results of the SEM model suitability criteria.
Based on Table 3 it can be seen that all indicators are good. In conclusion, the theoretical model built can be said to be in accordance with the data and is good.
4.3. Structural Relations and Hypothesis Results
The analysis in this study using SEM operated using lisrel program version 8.70. SEM application excellence is the ability to confirm the dimensions of the concept or factor to measure the effect of structural relationships that are theoretically exist (Ferdinand, 2002). In addition, SEM is used to measure indicators in latent variables (Haryono & Wardoyo, 2017; Hox, 2020). The results of the analysis of the structural relationship shown in Figure 2.
Figure-2. Structural Relations the influence factors of school management in developing entrepreneurship literacy in vocational education.
Figure 2 shows that leadership competence (LC), entrepreneurship curriculum (EC), entrepreneurship training (ET), community participation (CP), and local potential (LP) have a positive effect on school management (SM). It can be seen that the value of each influence on school management does not have a significant difference, although the local potential variable (LP) shows the highest (0.72). Furthermore, school management has a positive effect on teacher competence (TC), learning facilities (LF), and entrepreneurship education (EE), with the highest TC coefficient value of 0.98. TC and LF themselves have an influence on entrepreneurship education with a coefficient of 0.88 and 0.72. Entrepreneurship education has a positive effect on student entrepreneurial literacy with a coefficient value of 0.92. This entrepreneurial literacy is expected to encourage cultural development and the application of entrepreneurship after completing education later.
Contribution of indicators for each variable: One of the advantages of SEM is the latent variable which is able to contain many indicators. SEM can be used to determine the strength of an indicator's contribution to its latent variable (Haryono & Wardoyo, 2017; Kusnendi, 2009). Table 4 shows the contribution of the indicators for each of the exogenous and endogenous latent variables studied.
5. DISCUSSION
Table 4 shows the indicators that show the strength of the contribution of each variable. The leadership competency variable (LC) shows that the leadership experience indicator (x3) has the strongest contribution of 0.2380, followed by the contribution of understanding local potential (x3) of 0.250, and finally the contribution of entrepreneurship. competency indicator (x1) of 0.0950. These results indicate that the principal leadership experience factor occupies a preferred position in school management, including entrepreneurship education. The experiences of school principals tend to support strong visions and goals in producing student entrepreneurial skills, and vice versa. This experience at the same time will open the principal's insight about local potential as business prospects that need to be instilled by students, and will encourage seriousness to improve the competence of entrepreneurs who have a strong sense of self-confidence, work hard, are resilient, result-oriented, creative, innovative, and etc. Without it, the entire management of entrepreneurship education in schools will be hampered and fail to achieve the expected goals.
Table-4. Contribution of indicators for each variable.
| Variables | Indicators | Loading Value |
Construct Coefficient |
Contribution |
| Leadership | x1 = Entrepreneurship competence | 0.10 |
0.95 |
0.0950 |
| Competence | x2 = Leadership experience | 0.28 |
0.85 |
0.2380 |
| LC | x3 = Understanding of local potential | 0.25 |
0.86 |
0.2150 |
| Entrepreneurship | x4 = Curriculum development | 0.20 |
0.90 |
0.1800 |
| Curriculum | x5 = Provision of sylabus / modules | 0.05 |
0.98 |
0.0490 |
| EC | x6 = Relevant learning facility set | 0.28 |
0.85 |
0.2380 |
| Entrepreneurship | x7 = Management and organization training | 0.20 |
0.89 |
0.1780 |
| Training | x8 = Production training | 0.09 |
0.95 |
0.0855 |
| ET | x9 = Marketing training | 0.20 |
0.90 |
0.1800 |
| Community | x10 = Capital assistance | 0.31 |
0.83 |
0.2573 |
| Participation | x11 = Production assistance | 0.21 |
0.89 |
0.1869 |
| CP | x12 = Business supplier | 0.04 |
0.98 |
0.0392 |
| Local | x13 = Stakeholder coordination | 0.09 |
0.84 |
0.0756 |
| Potential | x14 = Identification of business prospects | 0.29 |
0.95 |
0.2755 |
| LP | x15 = Development of teaching materials | 0.21 |
0.89 |
0.1869 |
| School | x16 = Vision of entrepreneurship education | 0.44 |
0.76 |
0.3344 |
| Management | x17 = Manage local potential | 0.38 |
0.78 |
0.2964 |
| SM | x18 = Provision of experts / instructors | 0.25 |
0.87 |
0.2175 |
| x19 = Development of external cooperation | 0.26 |
0.86 |
0.2236 |
|
| Teacher | x20 = Mastery of the curriculum | 0.31 |
0.83 |
0.2573 |
| Competence | x21 = Coordination of learning | 0.19 |
0.90 |
0.1710 |
| TC | x22 = Support of learning practices | 0.25 |
0.87 |
0.3275 |
| Learning | x23 = Complete facilities | 0.16 |
0.91 |
0.1456 |
| Facility | x24 = Utilization of environmental potential | 0.22 |
0.88 |
0.1936 |
| LF | x25 = Support from business and industry actors | 0.04 |
0.98 |
0.0268 |
| Entrepreneurship | x26 = Deepening of teaching materials | 0.04 |
0.98 |
0.0392 |
| Education | x27 = Local potential-based production practice | 0.35 |
0.81 |
0.2835 |
| EE | x28 = Marketing system | 0.55 |
0.67 |
0.3685 |
| Entrepreneurship | x29 = Competence and entrepreneurial skills | 0.14 |
0.93 |
0.1302 |
| Literacy | x30 = Improve the welfare of life | 0.01 |
1.00 |
0.0100 |
| EL | x31 = Creativity in business | 0.27 |
0.85 |
0.2295 |
| x32 = Job orientation | 0.12 |
0.94 |
0.1128 |
Another variable that has a positive effect on school management is the entrepreneurial curriculum (ET). Statistical analysis shows that the indicator of the availability of suitable learning facilities (x5) has the strongest contribution to the entrepreneurship curriculum variable of 0.2380, followed by the syllabus / learning module provision (x4) indicator of 0.1800, and finally the indicator of the availability of experts / instructors (x5) of 0.0490. It should be noted that these results are processed answers to questions related to efforts to explore, utilize, and develop a curriculum based on local potential as business prospects. The same thing relates to the provision of local potential syllabus / modules to be developed in entrepreneurship education, as well as the provision and involvement of experts and teachers from the community, universities, related agencies, and others. What needs to be emphasized is the importance of school management to prioritize local potential in entrepreneurship education.
Another variable is entrepreneurial training (ET). This variable is an effort to explore, develop a curriculum, compile a syllabus / module, and take advantage of local potential. This training aims to instill and develop students' skills and independence in applying entrepreneurship as an alternative to work after graduating from school. In Figure 2, the indicators that contribute the strongest value to the ET variable are training related to marketing system materials and practices (x9) of 0.1800, followed by management and organizational training indicators (x7) of 0.1780, and finally the production training indicator. (x8) of 0.0855. This result is understandable, the utilization of local potential is considered to require marketing clarity and management skills, while to produce production does not have to be obtained from training but in other ways. The ease and smoothness in marketing production is something that attracts students to pursue entrepreneurship later.
Another variable is community participation (CP) as emotional and moral involvement of community members in school management, especially entrepreneurship education. Community participation is aimed at business actors, industry, and other community members (for example: community leaders, the rich, capital owners, and so on). The strongest indicator that contributes to the value in the community participation variable is business capital assistance (x10) of 0.2573, followed by the production aid indicator (x11) of 0.1869, and the indicator of being a supplier to the community, business actors and industry. (x12) of 0.0392. These results indicate that information regarding the source of capital from the community should be properly managed by schools, especially to develop cooperation with parties who can provide such business capital assistance. From this community participation, it is also hoped that students can gain knowledge and skills in the production process, especially those sourced from local potential. Becoming a supplier of production materials for business and industrial actors is less attractive to students if they later become entrepreneurs.
Local potential (LP) has positive influence on school management in entrepreneurship education. Indicators identify the needs of local potential business prospects (x14) the strongest contribution to this variable at 0.2755, followed by the indicator of the development of teaching materials (x15) of 0.1869, and indicators coordination stakeholders in exploring, defining, and harness the local potential (x13) of 0.0756. These results indicate that efforts to identify local potentials receive great attention from students, especially potentials that might be used as a source of business. Later efforts to harness local potential become the basis for developing entrepreneurial learning materials with optimal role of stakeholders involved in coordination.
Leadership competence (LC), entrepreneurship curriculum (EC), entrepreneurship training (ET), community participation (CM), and local potential (LP) variables have a significant effect on school management (SM), in particular the vision of entrepreneurship education, managing local potential, providing experts and instructors needed, and develop external cooperation. Statistical analysis shows that the indicator of having an entrepreneurial education vision (x16) has the strongest contribution to school management of 0.3344, followed by the local potential management indicator (x17) of 0.2964, the external cooperative development indicator (x19) of 0.2236, and indicators of provision of experts and instructors (x18) of 0.2175. These results indicate that school management requires a strong, serious, and wholehearted vision to be implemented in entrepreneurship education, so that it can really generate interest and instill an entrepreneurial mentality in students, not only seen as a complementary lesson. That is, the vision and goals of vocational education are not only aimed at developing student skills to enter jobs in the formal sector, but also fostering an entrepreneurial mentality to be independent and do business in the non-formal sector. A strong vision needs to be supported by efforts to manage local potential, starting from exploring and finding forms / types of potential that have business prospects, developing syllabus / modules, to implementing learning. In the management of this school it is also deemed necessary to be supported by fostering external relations (especially business actors in the community and industry) as well as involving experts and teachers to develop entrepreneurial skills.
Furthermore, school management also has a positive effect on teacher competence (TC), learning facilities (LF), and entrepreneurship education (EE). The coefficient value of the strongest influence of school management on teacher competence is 0.89 and learning facilities is 0.89, while entrepreneurship education is 0.82. This result is understandable because teacher competence and the provision of learning facilities are elements that must be considered in school management, while entrepreneurship education is a function and responsibility of teachers. However, in graph 2 it can be seen that teacher competence and learning facilities also have a positive effect on entrepreneurship education with coefficient values of 0.88 and 0.72.
In line with that, the strongest indicator that contributed to the value of the teacher competency variable (TC) was support for learning practice (x22) of 0.3275, followed by the curriculum mastery indicator (x20) of 0.2573, and learning coordination (x21) 0.1710. These results indicate that students are more focused on practical learning in entrepreneurship education, especially taking advantage of business prospects that come from local potential. Mastery of the curriculum, as well as the coordination of learning among teachers, are placed in second and third place, because they are considered theoretical and do not provide practical production skills. Practical learning is prioritized practical and easy to understand, plus production training obtained from outside parties (business, industry, etc.).
In the learning facility variable (LF), the indicators that contribute the strongest value are facilities that refer to the utilization of local potential (x24) of 0.1936, followed by indicators of completeness of facilities in schools (x23) of 0.146, and support for the use of facilities owned by business and industrial actors. From these results it can be seen that the use of complete learning facilities owned by schools has the first and second priority, while the support of business actors and business actors is seen as a complement to the implementation of entrepreneurship education.
Teacher competence (TC) and learning facilities (LF) have a positive effect on entrepreneurship education (EE). The indicator that contributes the strongest value to EE is the skill development of the marketing system for the production of goods / services (x28) of 0.3685, followed by indicators of local potential-based production practices (x27) of 0.2835, and indicators of deepening of teaching materials (x20) of 0.0392. The results showed that the students put more emphasis on learning about the marketing system in entrepreneurship education, in terms of understanding the strategies and ways of marketing goods / services that are useful later in entrepreneurship. The production of goods and services is expected to come from the utilization of local potential, both in the form of natural resources and the economic, social and cultural life of the community. Deepening teaching materials related to efforts to explore and exploit local potential that has prospects for the production of goods and services.
Of course, simplification of indicators on entrepreneurial education variables must be supported by adequate teacher competence in mastering teaching materials (theory and practice) in accordance with the utilization of developed local potential, supported by adequate learning facilities, and involving the influence factors described above. All of these things are expected to develop entrepreneurial literacy in students, not only knowing and understanding entrepreneurial theory and practice, but building skills, being creative, making work-orientation alternatives, and as a way to improve life welfare. Statistical analysis shows that the strongest indicator that contributes value to the entrepreneurial literacy variable (EL) is the emergence of student business creativity (x31) of 0.2295, followed by indicators of entrepreneurial competence and skills (x29) of 0.1302, alternative substitutes for work orientation at the non-formal sector (x32) is 0.1128, and as an entry point for improving the welfare of life (x30) is 0.0100. This last thing shows that entrepreneurship is based more on alternatives to getting a job, not yet considered an effort to improve welfare. Whatever the reason, it is hoped that the development of entrepreneurial literacy can encourage students to apply it after graduating.
6. CONCLUSION
School management in entrepreneurship education is influenced by factors or variables of principal competence, entrepreneurship curriculum, entrepreneurship training, community participation, and local potential. Furthermore, school management has an effect on the management of teacher competence, learning facilities, and the implementation of entrepreneurship education in developing students' entrepreneurial literacy.
Entrepreneurship education is recommended to be an element in the vision, commitment and seriousness of school management. It is also necessary to pay attention to the indicators that contribute the strongest value to each of the factors or variables that affect school management, and variables that are influenced by school management. The strongest indicators are leadership experience in LC variables, relevant learning facilities for EC, marketing system learning for ET, business capital assistance for CP, identification of business prospects for LP, support for practical learning for TC, utilization of environmental potential for LF, and system learning marketing towards EE.
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
REFERENCES
Alberti, F. G., Poli, A., & Sciascia, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Notes on an ongoing debate. Paper presented at the 14th Annual IntEnt Conference IntEnt2004 University of Napoli Federico II Italy.
Bisnis. (2019). Hipmi ready to boost the number of new entrepreneurs in Indonesia. Retrieved from: https://www.tribunnews.com/bisnis/2019/06/28/hipmi-siap-dongkrak-jumlah-pengusaha-baru-di-indonesia .
Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 5-12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840730.
Central Statistics Agency. (2019). Statistics Indonesia. Jakarta: Central Statistics Agency.
Daradjat, Z. (2013). Environment and facilities of Islamic education. Jakarta: Gunung Agung.
Davis, K. (2014). Organizational behavior: Human behavior at work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dessler, G. (2015). Human resource management. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2004). Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 242 –257. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.14242103
Ferdinand, A. (2002). Structural equation modeling in management research. Application of Complex Models in Research for Master's Thesis & Doctoral Dissertation, Publisher: BP Undip.
Hair, J. J. F., William, C., Black Ba, J., & Babin, R. E. A. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. United States: Pearson Publisher.
Haryono, S., & Wardoyo, P. (2017). Structural equation modeling (SEM) for management research with AMOS 18.00. Jakarta: Luxima Metro Media Publishing.
Heinonen, J., & Sari-Anne Poikkijoki, S. A. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: Mission impossible? Journal of Management Development, 25(1), 80-94. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710610637981.
Hermawan, B. (2018). Curriculum development. Retrived from: https://barudakipsb.wordpress.com/2018/10/16/pengembangan-kurikulum/.
Hidayat, S. (2013). New curriculum development. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Hisrich, R. D., & Peters, M. P. (2002). Entrepreneurship (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Hox, J. J. (2020). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Family Science Review, 11, 354 – 373.
Huneryear, & Hecman. (2009). Participation and group dynamics. Semarang: Dahara Prize.
Hynes, B., & Richardson, I. (2008). Entrepreneurship education: Towards an industry sector approach. Research Paper, 7 – 11. Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Available at: 10.1108/00400910810873973.
Isrososiawan, S. (2013). The role of entrepreneurship in education, society. Journal of the Department of Social Studies Education, 9, 26–49.
Ivancevich, J. (2007). Human resources management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorborn, D. (1993). LISREL 8. Structural equation modeling with the simplis command languanges. Chicago: SSI Inc.
Knight, R. M. (1987). Corporate innovation and entrepreneurship: A Canadian study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(4), 284-297. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(87)90032-4.
Kusnendi. (2009). Structural equation modelling. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number. (2003). Concerning the national education system.
Luthans, F. (2014). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2012). Human resource management. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
Mulyasa, E. (2006). Educational unit level curriculum a practical guide. Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya.
Mustangin, Desy Kusniawati, K., Islami, N. P., Setyaningrum, B., & Prasetyawati, E. (2017). Community empowerment based on local potentials through the tourism village program in bumiaji village. Socioglobal: Journal of Sociological Thought and Research, 2(1), 59 – 72.
Regulation of the Minister of National Education No.13. (2007). Regarding Minimum Educational Qualifications and Competencies of Principals.
Regulation of the Minister of National Education No.16. (2007). Regarding Minimum Educational Qualifications and Teacher Competencies.
Robbins, S. P. (2006). Essentials of organization behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International Inc.
Roe, R. A. (2001). Competence human resource. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press.
Ruky, A. S. (2003). Quality of human resources. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Safitri, E. (2018). Optimizing the utilization of local potential in community economic empowerment in village sukamulya kecamatan banyumas kabupaten pringsewu. Thesis, Lampung: Raden Intan State Islamic University, Lampung.
Sarjono, H., & Yulainita, W. (2019). Structural equation modeling (SEM): An introduction, application for business research. Jakarta: Salemba Empat Publishing.
Scarborough, N. M., & Zimmerer, T. W. (2005). Introduction to entrepreneurship and small business management. Jakarta: Prenhalindo.
Septiani, P. M. (2017). Community economic empowerment based on local potential to improve household economy in one kecubung village, terbanggi village, central lampung. Thesis, Lampung: Raden Intan State Islamic University, Lampung.
Suyitno, A. (2013). Entrepreneurship education: Theory and practice, paper. Bandung: Indonesian Education University.
Usman, H. (2016). Management: Theory, practice, and research education. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Wibowo. (2013). Performance management. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), World Journal of Vocational Education and Training shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |