“Gethok Tular” as the Leadership Strategy of School Principals to Strengthen Multi-Stakeholder Forum Role in Improving the Quality of One-Roof Schools in Remote Areas in Indonesia

Abstract

This study aimed at finding an effective leadership strategy carried out by one-roof school principals in remote areas. This study was conducted qualitatively with a multi-site approach. The data were obtained from the school principals as key informants and focus group discussion (FGD) involving all school principals, Indonesian Institute of Education Innovation Training and Consultant (LPKIPI), education staff, school supervisors, and stakeholders as the participants and resource persons. Findings suggested that (a) the problems encountered by one-roof school principals in the remote areas were significantly related to culture, economy, demography, geography, and historical aspects, (b) the characteristics of success of school principals in remote areas include a clear vision, high-spirit performance, andhab asor (low profile), active involvement in various social activities, strong motivation for continuous learning, open to feedback, having commitment to cooperate with various parties, having a high awareness that school is an educational system and the essential part from the social system in general, persistent, high confidence that they are not alone in carrying out school policies, creative, able to see the context in various perspectives, patient, polite, warm, and smart or attractive, (c) “Gethok Tular¹” is the most effective leadership strategy to strengthen the role of multi-stakeholder forum (MSF), and (d) the involvement of MSF members needs to be done selectively and effectively through the identification of TKU, intensive communication with TKU, identification of other figures, discussions, and sharing roles and strengthening MSF on an ongoing basis.

Keywords

leadership strategy multi-stakeholder forum one-roof schools remote area

Introduction

A school principal is a primary determiner of the quality of education in a school (Gibson, 2014; Pan et al., 2015; Urick, 2016). The principal is a significant determinant of the school quality. The quality of educational outcomes is primarily determined by the ability of all human resources to optimize their potential supported by the principal (Lumpkin, 2014; Tchibozo, 2013). Not all school principals have the ability to actualize their qualities unless they have sufficient leadership competence (Starr & White, 2008).

Running the leadership duty of school principals is not easy, mainly in schools located in remote areas. In general, schools in remote areas have relatively similar characteristics: poor economic conditions, low education awareness, nonconducive school buildings, inadequate teacher salaries, and low government supervision of the activities of teachers and school principals (Hyson, 2013; Juharyanto, 2017; Nugroho, 2014). Maintaining schools in a weak condition and developing them according to established quality standards is a formidable challenge for all school principals. Those challenges become the reasons for many teachers, who are appropriate to occupy the position of the school principal, to avoid this position. Based on the interviews conducted with teachers at the selection of prospective principals held by LP2KS,² more than 70% of the teachers do not desire to be promoted as school principals, especially in remote schools. The appointment of principals in Indonesia finally did not consider the quality of their potential. The appointment of school principals is merely based on their willingness to be appointed as school principals (Sigurðardóttir & Sigþórsson, 2016; Tamrat Atsebeha, 2016). Whatever the consideration, not all school principals have failed in managing the school, or vice versa. Several school principals realize their powerlessness, so they try hard to involve all stakeholders in developing schools to achieve the expected quality.

The high spirit of leadership determines the success of the school principal. They believe that the role of the school principal is crucial for the improvement of school quality. The principal’s main role is as a school quality developer, not a school development resistor (Tamrat Atsebeha, 2016). Principal’s awareness about the importance of integrating humanistic values will encourage all school stakeholders to remain active in making various innovations in developing a one-stop school (SATAP). Several previous research revealed that high leadership enthusiasm significantly influences the success of principals in developing their schools (Gibson, 2014; Hyson, 2013; Juharyanto et al., 2019).

SATAP is a school that is managed in an integrated manner in one elementary school building (Nurmalasari & Wulandari, 2018; Yuliastuti et al., 2016). Thus far, the number of SATAP in Indonesia is around 5,000 units (Kemendikbud Perkuat Sekolah “Satu Atap,” 2016). The development of SATAP is not only based on the efficiency of education funding policies but is also mobilized by the low access of primary school graduates due to geographical, economic, and even cultural reasons (Tveit et al., 2014).

The sustainability of SATAP encountered complexities, namely (a) most of the teachers have insufficient capabilities to engage with schools and environmental problems, (b) most of the SATAP teachers are elementary school teachers who have low skills and constraint experiences in teaching the junior high schools, (c) the school principals congregate many difficulties in managing and leading the two different schools due to different characteristics, (d) low moral and financial supports from the students, and (e) low learning awareness, and so on (Juharyanto, 2017; Juharyanto et al., 2018).

It is uneasy about being a school principal in a remote area. Although communication technology has become a necessity for every villager, its use is still more on entertainment, not as a tool for developing knowledge (Findlay, 2003; Zakub et al., 2018). Even with a relatively low educational background, technological devices may hinder the interactions of their lives (Arnold et al., 2005; Findlay, 2003; Schrag, 2016). They are teenagers with a limited understanding of technology, whose existence also determines the future of their society. Under such conditions, the role of schools has become increasingly complicated. Whatever the situation, the principal needs to take on the role of being an agent of change for people’s lives through the schools they lead. (Wahyono, 2011).

On the contrary, the cultural and social aspects of villagers can be a vast potential to be used as a way to approach them by the school principal in making changes. The culture of buphak-bhabuk-ghuru-ratoh in the Madurese tribe (Hefni, 2007), as in the culture of unggah-ungguh in the Javanese tribe (Trianton, 2015) is still acknowledged as pitutur luhur or noble sayings which are firmly held by them (Zakub et al., 2018). Such a culture is a living tradition that can be used as a strategic instrument by school principals in building social support through strengthening the role of stakeholders to strengthen the achievement of school programs. Many studies suggest the use of local wisdom for reference in supporting the development of school education. Two sources of strength very much determine school sustainability. They are community strength that supports the school program and the support of the school program for community development. The main strategy that can be carried out by schools, together with the community, is through strengthening the use of local wisdom values that are recognized and developed by the community (Djibat, 2015; Spillane, 1996).

The biggest opportunity for school principals to get support from the community in developing SATAP is to foster community awareness that schools are the main and important part of the community (Bowe et al., 2017; Faegerlind & Saha, 2016). Principals need to make strategic, systematic, and careful efforts so that the community can actualize their potential in school development. The principal must also identify the norms applied, the values of local wisdom that are believed, specific themes raised as the everyday language of the school and the community, social, cultural, and even economic problems. In addition, the principal needs to map the existence of the role of social figures to develop an approach, strategy, and effective interaction model in communicating creative ideas based on identified local themes. The principal has a huge opportunity in the form of community leaders to be approached wisely to strengthen the principal’s existence and develop school programs (Agbaria, 2015; Banks, 1997; Tilaar, 1998). With each of the characteristics, roles, and functions of community figures, they can be maximized to increase the variety of needs for school development, especially through the exploration of pitutur luhur values. Their presence is expected, their ideas need to be facilitated, and in the end, school programs can be supported and carried out together with these figures. This role needs to be supported by local strategies that are believed to be strong and developing in the community, one of which is the “Gethok Tular” strategy, which is still very relevant to the informal cultural character that develops in rural communities, especially in remote areas. Approaching the community with the best strategies becomes the principal’s strength in actualizing the quality of education and teaching in schools. The principal’s responsibility is to be creative in developing strategies based on the strength of local wisdom values that develop through community leaders.

Literature Review

“Gethok Tular” as a Leadership Strategy of the School Principals

Leadership strategy is the activity of driving everyone involved in the organization so that they generate a quality organizational performance in achieving organizational goals to the fullest through an effective approach. The principal’s leadership strategy is directed to create a conducive organizational performance to support the performance of school programs to the maximum level, especially in the context of learning (Anderson, 2016; Day et al., 2016). The principal’s leadership strategy is an activity undertaken to stimulate all resources involved in school development, both directly and indirectly, to improve the school quality. The resources consist of elements of the school, parents, and the community holistically who have a strong passion and commitment to improving school programs (Schrag, 2016).

The principal is not a single leader in schools. However, the existence of the principal has the most strategic position in determining the school’s future (Matthijs & Blyth, 2015). The principal is an individual who involves the self totally in the school organization in developing the school. School successes and failures are determined mainly by the ability, willingness, and hard work of the school principal to strengthen all school staff (Beare et al., 2018; Gurr, 2015). The principal, as the highest leader in the school, is obliged to mobilize each resource so that they have a commitment to be actively involved together to build quality school achievements (Goddard et al., 2015), especially the quality of learning. Regarding this, many studies conclude that even in the context of learning, teachers are dealing directly with students, but student success is also determined by the principal (Arifin et al., 2018; Beare et al., 2018; Gurr, 2015; Krasnoff, 2015).

In essence, the principal also has a social, cultural, and even political role in the community (Hopkins, 2015). This is an essential role for school principals to get support from various parties in the community. School principals cannot avoid such conditions for various reasons, including (a) the school is a mini-community of other communities as a whole (Epstein, 2018), (b) the school is part of a social system in which the school is involved to strengthen the values developed by the community where the school is located (Touraine, 2017), (c) the school educates students from the surrounding community, integrates with the community, together with the community so that they can live in the community (Schrag, 2016), and (d) the community has the best aspirations for people’s lives in the future. These values should be developed by the school. The community needs a school presence (Belfield & Levin, 2015; Munn, 2018). These four reasons become essential foundations for school principals that there is an excellent opportunity for school principals to develop schools together with all internal and external components as community representatives.

Not all school principals have social, cultural, and political awareness as expected (Belfield & Levin, 2015; Epstein, 2018). In general, such principals assume that schools are only in their responsibility. The school principal strives to explore ideas and creativity only by involving various internal components of the school. The principal seems to be exclusively managing the school without trying to involve the expectations of the community as the leading owner of the students (Roberts & Buch, 2016). Schools like this must be problematic due to a lack of support from the community. Education and teaching practices in schools have the potential to conflict with the values and norms that develop in the local community. When the community no longer gets the attention and support of the school, the school will be abandoned and die.

A strong principal leadership strategy can only be carried out effectively by principals who have social, cultural, and political awareness by immersing them amid internal and external school communities. The ability of principals to position themselves proportionally during interactions is an effective approach in strengthening schools to get the maximum quality of community support. However, schools are institutions that must understand the hopes and aspirations of the community better. Schools need to identify, integrate, and agree on, and manage school programs by involving the community as a whole (Banks, 1997; Findlay, 2003). Based on this fact, the principal has the opportunity to successfully bring the school to maximum quality through the selection of effective strategies based on local wisdom, one of which is “Gethok Tular.”

In various business studies, “Gethok Tular” has been concluded as an effective strategy that can improve company excellence (Darmastuti et al., 2016; Kurniawan, 2015; Suryono, 2013). “Gethok Tular” is an activity of delivering information and promotion based on local wisdom to people through the mouth. “Gethok Tular” strategy is a highly effective strategy to increase the information acceptance being delivered because of two reasons, namely (a) the “Gethok Tular” strategy is supported by the strength of credible messages (both positive and negative) and processes messages face-to-face to make them more convincing and (b) the strategy of “Gethok Tular” is loaded with the character of “an invitation to believe and be involved” with the contents of the message delivered directly and openly. Indubitably, the effectiveness and efficiency of these strategies need to be driven by particular prerequisites to function optimally.

Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF)

Multi-stakeholders are one of the components of the management system in good governance, which is applied until today (Alladi & Vadari, 2011; Donny, 2018). Multi-stakeholder encourages the involvement of community groups to discuss and negotiate certain policies and regulations that support and strengthen certain organizational systems in achieving their goals to be more effective and efficient. Discussion and negotiation activities of multi-stakeholders can be performed in various forms; one of them is through the MSF. Conceptually, the role of MSF is significantly effective in determining the direction of organizational policy systematically and comprehensively.

In general, school activities include many aspects, including education, learning, community, health, security, environment, religion, culture, economy, and so forth. Therefore, MSF is a set of stakeholders who represent different dimensions of these interests. The existence of a school principal is not only bound by aspects of education and learning, but also the overall complex aspects as a representation of the components of society as a whole. The principal’s leadership skills and creativity in guiding and stimulating positive responses from the MSF determine the effectiveness of MSF’s involvement and role in the realization of the school program’s quality (Barnett & McCormick, 2004; Hopkins, 2015).

The efficiency and effectiveness of MSF should be an essential consideration for schools. The presence of MSF should be ensured to play a role in supporting the achievement of school goals. Three important aspects should be considered by school principals in playing MSF for schools optimally, including (a) stakeholder legitimacy, (b) participation in dialogue, and (c) the effectiveness and efficiency of the process (Donny, 2018).

Stakeholder legitimacy relates to the level of acceptance of ideas by various stakeholder members in the MSF (Hadi, n.d.). The growth of trust and mutual respect of all members is the key to the growth of the spirit of initiative exploration. The identification of certain people who deserve to be involved in MSF inclusively must be done very carefully. The success of the dialogue focused more on the quality of the participants’ involvement, initiation, and ideas to strengthen the forum’s activities. To strengthen this activity, four phases need to be considered by the principal, including information, communication, cooperation, and partnership (Disterheft et al., 2015). The information phase aims to find common ground about the school, its needs, and important things as the next follow up (Hendrickson & Lattman, 1970). The communication phase has begun to address the school’s strategic issues that require more in-depth reinforcement. Reciprocal communication becomes an essential element in this second phase. The cooperation phase continues the follow-up agreement on strategic issues to be distributed according to the functions and roles of each member or participant. The final phase is a partnership where each member responsible for carrying out specific strategies in accordance with their functions and roles and agree to follow up on more intensive cooperation.

Participating in dialogues is facilitating the opportunity to participate in stakeholders in expressing school principals’ ideas, initiatives, and aspirations. The ultimate goal is to make quality agreements for school development. The principal is responsible for building awareness of teamwork that each strategy is inseparable from other strategies as a whole school system. Although the agreement is not required to be implemented, the principal is still obliged to establish intensive communication so that the MSF continues to maintain its commitment to build schools together (Donny, 2018). Therefore, intensive interaction between the school principal and the key figures of MSF needs to be maintained and strengthened.

The effectiveness and efficiency emphasize activities to set targets, analyze work carefully, set priorities, and always focus on the quality of benefits in developing school quality together with stakeholders. School principals communicate and make sure that initiatives, ideas, and creativities significantly support the administration and achievement of the program effectively and efficiently. Principals with MSF need to identify the most appropriate programs that support school goals and can be achieved in a relatively short, affordable, and efficient time. The principal and MSF must build various indicators of program achievement to become the basis for measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization. Therefore, effectiveness and efficiency are the essential variables to be paid attention by all MSF members (Fleischmann et al., 2015).

MSF, Quality of Education, and Leadership Strategy

MSF is a forum established to facilitate community participation variation of ideas, suggestions, initiatives, opinions, energy, skills, services or goods, and even finances. MSF is a forum built on the similarity of thought, attitude, and action in a collaborative reviewing all potential schools and society in accordance with the roles and functions of the members to serve as the basis for preparing essential school decisions, that focused on dimensions of learning development (Mcculla & Degenhardt, 2016). The manifestations of participation include (a) the similar commitment to strengthening education in schools, (b) community involvement in making essential school decisions, (c) community involvement in education and teaching, (d) community awareness in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of school programs, and (e) the willingness of the community to take responsibility for the success of the school (Jabuya et al., 2014; Mcculla & Degenhardt, 2016).

The description above shows that MSF is a multi-stakeholder forum that has the same desires and ideas to improve the quality of schools in the context of education, learning, management, and school leadership. The school is ultimately a powerful educational institution because of the quality of the principal’s strong leadership support in mobilizing and strengthening the role and function of the MSF significantly in the school. A strong school leadership is mostly determined by leadership strategy choices in accordance with the local characteristics where schools and principals are located. Approaching the community based on local wisdom values is a strategic entry point for finding effective leadership strategies in strengthening and mobilizing MSF that support school development.

Method

Contexts

This research was carried out based on information from the Indonesian Educational Innovation Training and Consultant (LPKIPI) that provided mentoring to SATAP for many years. With the same material and approach, the performance achieved by each SATAP shows significant differences, namely (a) SATAP that failed to make changes, (b) SATAP that make quite good changes through direct management by the principal by only involving the internal school team, (c) SATAP has succeeded in making significant changes through the management carried out by two principals (elementary school principals and junior high school principals), and (d) SATAP succeeded in making changes and development very well because it was managed by one principal with an internal school team and involved the participation of all education stakeholders in the local community.

Furthermore, LPKIPI information proclaimed that different performance achievements were caused by several aspects, including (a) government intervention and mediation by a similar consultant do not have the same effect for SATAP on achieving similar success. The most decisive factor is the quality of choice of the principal’s leadership strategy, (b) the success of school principals in involving the roles and functions of stakeholders is mostly determined by the efforts of principals in adapting to local characteristics, the ability to provide information, the ability to communicate a variety of programs reciprocally, the willingness to accept various ideas and suggestions, the ability to establish partnership, and the willingness to share roles proportional, (c) the level of acceptance of the SATAP principal requires specific characteristics that must be accommodated and carried out by the principal. The level of acceptance is directly proportional to the support of stakeholders.

Key Informants and Participants

This research was based on real phenomena through various problems and considerations above traced naturally through unstructured in-depth interviews of 24 school principals as key informants with a distribution of eight SATAP principals from East Java Province and 16 SATAP principals from West Sulawesi Province. To support the completeness and objectivity of data and information at the same time, the first (main) data were informed and discussed further through group discussion forums, both at the research target (Table 1) and other focus group discussions (FGDs) with relevant themes and participants (Table 2).

Table 1.

FGD Participants in Multi-Stakeholder Forum Activities of the Three Clusters.

		Stakeholders’ representative from three clusters
Head of region(clusters)	Provinces	Principals	Teachers	Education department	Head of district	Chief of village	Youth organization	Village head center	Integrated healthcare center	Industry	Military	Police center	Islamic school representative
Polewali Mandar	West Sulawesi	7	86	7	3	14	5	5	5	0	0	0	5
Mamuju	West Sulawesi	9	94	8	3	18	4	4	4	0	0	0	4
Bondowoso	East Java	8	99	7	4	16	4	4	4	1	9	5	10

Note. FGD = focus group discussion.

Table 2.

Further FGD Participants.

Distribution of advanced FGD participants	Amount
Education Department of West Papua Province	36
Education Officers and Supervisors of Papua Province	27
Principals and Supervisors of Malang East Java	243
Lecturers of Palangkaraya University, Central Kalimantan	31
Lecturers of Universitas Negeri Malang East Java	7

Note. FGD = focus group discussion.

Data Sources

FGD

Discussion activities involving all components of stakeholders and professional groups were able to present data and information that is genuinely selective, focused, and trusted. FGD then became a more effective method in evaluating the first findings were then triangulated through FGDs in the SATAP MSF activities in three clusters (Table 1), and other FGDs integrated with various forums. For example, in the Training of Strengthening Managerial Competence of School Principals in Malang, Workshop on Scientific Writing Skills, Workshop on Curriculum Development for lecturers at Palangkaraya University, and other workshops conducted in West Papua and Papua Provinces. Further analysis of the findings was also carried out through various discussions with colleagues at the State University of Malang, who indeed have expertise in the fields of leadership, schooling, and nonformal education. The more detail distribution of further FGD participants was in Table 2.

Individual interviews

Data arising from focus groups were shaped by local social-norms, cultural, expectations, and problems. Therefore, additional data sources in this study were needed. Moreover, it was taken through semi-structured interviews with student teachers and particular community leaders. The main focus of the interview was awareness and commitment to get involved in efforts to improve school quality.

Data Analysis

The triangulation results of these findings were then reviewed academically and compared with relevant previous research. For data validity, reduction analysis, presentation, verification, and conclusion were used. In addition, the data validity test was also carried out to prove credibility through continuous involvement on various activities carried out by the school principal in MSF, observation of various performances, member checks, intercolleague discussion, data audits on the relevant field, and confirmation carried out by looking at the relationship between the data obtained, information received, and interpretations found.

Results and Discussion

Local Problems of SATAP in Remote Areas

One-roof school is established as a solution to the low access of 9-year primary education, mainly in a remote area. There are several problems met by SATAP. This problem is related to culture, economy, demography, geography, and historical aspects.

Cultural aspect

The cultural problems met by SATAP are: (a) the stigma of “religious schools is more important than public schools” and (b) early-age marriage often occurs, particularly on girls. Parents experience confusion even feel embarrassed when there no one proposes their daughter at the ages of 12–15 years old. They perceived that their daughter is unwanted and tend to be expired. In this condition, the parents will move them to an Islamic boarding school when they are in the fifth or sixth grade. The effort is considered as an effective way to increase their social status and believed that it impacts on the bargain value of their daughter in the society’s perspective, (c) public school is still considered as the institution inhibiting the transformation of values and norms applied in the circumstance. Public education has been deemed as a particular educational institution that tends to prepare the students with the value of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and critical ability on the already established order of education, and (d) remote communities have a high culture shock. The technology in hand is not equal to the quality of education for the village students. Therefore, the diversity of foreign information and cultural values can freely and massively influence the way of thinking and act of those children. Such a condition is perceived to endanger the sustainability of the local culture. Accordingly, religious education becomes the most effective choice.

Social aspect

Public education has been considered as an educational institution that fosters individualistic, competitive, and sarcastic values. Those values are contrary to the developed tradition. The rural community believes that the developed tradition is an established and mature tradition that generates solidarity, friendship, the feeling of needing each other, individual and social approach, helping each other without ulterior motives, the principle of developing together, mutual nurturing, and so forth. Public education is considered as a threat to the establishment.

Economic aspect

The presence of school with the half-day study time is considered to close opportunities to obtained additional income. For them, income is more important than education. Most learning-age children still work in the farm and plantation to obtain income, mainly during the planting and harvest seasons. These seasons provide major chances and significantly beneficial for them to obtain income. Therefore, education, mainly public education, is considered as a severe threat to the economic growth of the local community.

Demography aspect

The majority of people, mainly the parents of the students in the remote areas, find more promising jobs outside their islands where they are living now. Their children are taken care of by their grandparents. Demographically, the society in the remote areas does not only lack of residents due to their tradition to work outside the island, but also their motivation to get an education is significantly low for not getting direct parental care from their parents.

Geographical aspect

Hilly locations in mountainous areas, inadequate infrastructure, and long-distance access between communities and schools are challenges for getting an education. By all means, this situation has an impact on the difficulty of managing education effectively by the school principal. The situation of these locations will be increasingly difficult in the rainy season. The access to schools is getting worse, and a trip to school is increasingly difficult to pass due to muddy road conditions. The safety and comfort of the trip to school are increasingly endangered.

Earlier leadership history aspect

In some remote regions, the presence of new principals is often associated with the performance of previous ones. The successes and failures of previous principals, their behavior and closeness to the community, as well as the problems that arise in school management, are of concern to the community in responding to the presence of new principals. Certain communities have performance standards as a precondition that must be possessed by the principal so that his presence as a new school principal is accepted and supported by the local community.

The description above shows that managing and developing SATAP in remote areas is a difficult and challenging task. Not all school principals can manage and develop such schools (Epstein, 2018). Other countries such as Australia, Japan, India, and Africa have relatively similar problems and challenges in developing their remote schools. The problems include cultural, social, economic, geographic, and demographic problems which holistically impact on the low achievement of school quality (Griffiths, 1968; National Association for Study of Education in Remote and Isolated Area, 2013; Sahni, 2015; Sealander et al., 2001; Starr & White, 2008). These problems have been approached with various strategic solutions. Specifically, in Indonesia, these problems are also related to the performance of the former principal, where the community assumes that the presence of the new principal will not be different from the previous one. Remote communities often generalize the failure of the previous principal with the possibility of the failure of the next one. These problems contribute to the failure of further principals. In addition, the problem of environmental hygiene and health is another specific problem faced by schools in remote areas in Indonesia, such as in Zimbabwe (Mutale, 2015).

In most cases, discussions of effective school management issues spend more time, thoughts, energy on the principal, teachers, and staff than discussing efforts to improve and develop school quality. Not all school principals can solve school management problems quickly and appropriately. Some school principals who have elevated leadership qualities can present a variety of the best alternative solutions in improving the quality of school management, including in involving the community in school affairs (Postiglione et al., 2012). The failure of principals’ leadership sometimes is not only caused by the number of problems they meet but their inability to face problems as to facts that can be turned into excellent and appropriate opportunities, especially for the improvement and development of school quality.

Characteristics of Principals’ Prerequisites as Determinants of SATAP’s Success

The success of the SATAP school principal in strengthening MSF’s role in providing significant support to the school program was determined by the local community. Those characteristics have a clear vision, perform with a high spirit, andhab asor (low profile), get involved into various social activities, strong motivation for continuous learning, open to feedback, having commitment to cooperate with various parties, having a high awareness that school is an educational system and the critical part from the social system in general, persistent and never give up, have high confidence that they are not alone in carrying out school policies, creative, able to see the context in various perspectives, patient, polite, warm, smart, or attractive.

Being a school principal is not easy. They are the chosen people since they have fulfilled the requirement as the school principals. Specifically, in Indonesia, to be appointed as a school principal, they have to meet at least five competencies: managerial, entrepreneurship, supervision, personality, and social (The Ministry of National Education, 2007). In several studies, one of the most primary requirements that need to be met by the school principal is the personality competence (Ibukun et al., 2011) that is attached as a professional and emotional identity in carrying out his leadership (Crow et al., 2017).

The research findings reported by Ibukun et al. (2011) and Crow et al. (2017) are similar to the case in Indonesia, especially in remote areas, where personality competence is the main requirement that must be met in accordance with the social characteristics in these places. Meeting personality competency standards is perceived as an effort to meet the desired value standards by the community. The high quality of personality can be an essential factor in the establishment of others’ trust (Grankvist & Kajonius, 2015). If the standard has been met and conducted sincerely, then the society will accept and support all the regulations programmed by the school principals (Schrag, 2016). Personality is a critical aspect that determines the quality of community support for schools.

Leadership Strategy of “Gethok Tular” Reinforcing the Role of MSF

“Gethok Tular” is a local tradition mainly in the Javanese, which is conducted as a form of the distribution of information from one person to another orally. “Gethok Tular” is an effective strategy in performing the leadership role of the school principal for some reasons, namely (a) as a media of information integrated in the traditional values which are still acknowledged and performed, (b) having a high effectiveness of message delivery, mainly if delivered by particularly credible figures, (c) strategy does not only contain the meaning of “message delivery,” but also verification and validation of message. Therefore, it has a high level of trust, and (d) this strategy is to direct others to understand, invite, strengthen, and involve carrying out and convey information to others.

SATAP school principals who realize that they are individuals with a low capability of leadership but also have a high awareness of the strength of local tradition. Principally, “Gethok Tular” will obtain a high success in finding and getting social support to actualize the aspirations and achievement of the school programs. The school principals realize that society has a significant role in the achievement of school objectives. The “Gethok Tular” strategy was proven to be an effective solution to get maximum support from the community before the society’s role strengthening is done.

The effectiveness of a school principal’s leadership is signified through the level of individual involvement quality in supporting the success of the school program (Schrag, 2016). Leadership effectiveness is also significantly supported by the personal performance in stimulating the emergence of the trust from the individual involved in the school organization (Grankvist & Kajonius, 2015; The Ministry of National Education, 2007; Murtedjo & Suharningsih, 2018). The personal aspect does not stand alone, but it is integrated with values developing in the local community. The leadership role of the school principal will be effective if they come into being as an individual who represents the society aspiration thoroughly. At this point, support from the community grows and strengthens through strategic interactions with critical figures through the use of “Gethok Tular” as a sophisticated strategy. Effective leadership often occurs not because of the academic factor but an individual’s personality factor. The success of the school is often supported by political competence since their existence requires support from society (Hopkins, 2015). The integration of personality and politics of the school principals will support a high power in improving and developing SATAP. People in remote areas need leaders with higher personality qualities compared with other aspects, especially those reflected in the communication aspects of the principal, both verbally, nonverbally, gesturally, and texturally. The two competencies (personality and politics) are the main key to support the “Gethok Tular” strategy that strengthens the success of the principal’s communication with the community in improving the quality of schools together.

“Gethok Tular” is not a regular verbal communication, as is done in the form of daily conversation. “Gethok Tular” is communication that integrates the power of specific values where the recipient of the message will grasp its meaning, accept it well, and do it seriously (Cakir & Cetin, 2013; Martin, 2017). “Gethok Tular” strategy not only passes on the information from one person to another, but also contains the characteristics of verification, validation, reconstruction, and propaganda. All information conveyed is not received as it is, but further and deeper cross-checked is done to explore its truth, and it is distributed through the addition of specific values that can add the strength of the received information, so it can be received by and also attract others. The effectiveness of “Gethok Tular” becomes more substantial and more qualified if it involves critical figures as message distributors (Banks, 1997; Findlay, 2003). Any program designed by the school principal, if supported by the key person in the society, will run well. “Gethok Tular” which is packaged in the integration of the key figures, will significantly support the success of the school program.

Strengthening the Role of MSF in Improving the SATAP Quality

The first step taken by the principal in strengthening the role of MSF to improve the quality of schools is to identify key people (TKU). TKU is a person who has a strong influence in which all statements and behaviors are role models for the community. Furthermore, the principal conducts intensive communication, creates good relationships, and has ongoing discussions. The topics discussed at each meeting were the character of the local community, the community’s expectations of the school, the role of mutualism that can be taken by the school and community, identification of other prominent figures, building more plans and strategies to build interaction with others, and the possibility of sharing role with other prominent figures. The expected outcome in each meeting with TKU is the agreement and commitment supporting the achievement of SATAP vision as the conclusion of the social vision thoroughly.

Agreements and commitments that have been agreed upon, followed by expanding relations with the use of the strategy “Gethok Tular” to other key figures. The leading figures can include village heads, village youth leaders, village representative institutions (Badan Perwakilan Desa [BPD]), Posyandu (Integrated Service Post), Ponkesdes (Rural Health Service), Director of Plantation Companies, Police Departments, Military Headquarters, District Heads, and other related elements of society. The relationship is built individually and in a particular group, valued by the spirit of ngangsu kaweruh (curiosity), building empathy and mutual support, and sharing roles to carry out agreed topics and roles. After agreements and commitments are established, then proceed with arranging a meeting scheduled for discussion and sharing information about fulfilling social aspirations and the SATAP program, and sharing roles in solving each SATAP problem in accordance with their respective fields or clusters in the MSF.

Through the implementation of the “Gethok Tular” strategy which is supported by the high commitment of school principals and the community and through the division of each clear role, community support for schools increases. The students’ attendance to school increases high, awareness of the clean life of school residents and the community is creating, children’s learning activities are well controlled, school income increases (one of which is contributed by community efforts in utilizing vacant land in schools in the form of school plantations), learning support from parents is getting better, academic and nonacademic achievements are increasing over time.

As noted above, the involvement of stakeholders in certain forums (MSF) conducted by schools contributes significantly to the effectiveness and efficiency of school programs (van Tulder, 2011). The discussion and negotiation activities of the multi-stakeholders are significantly effective in establishing the organization’s policy systematically and holistically. The vital role of MSF’s involvement in school success needs to be supported, strengthened and developed well into various school programs (van Tulder, 2011). Nevertheless, school principals are not the only ones responsible for the future of the school. The supports from various parties are needed, so the aspiration of the school can be achieved maximally. Therefore, involving the role of MSF is not merely involving specific people without selection and recommendations. The selection and recommendation need to be conducted based on the feedback and suggestions from key figures (TKU). Involving TKU means giving the trust to certain people to select and recommend other prominent figures who have appropriateness levels according to the expectation of the school principal, as communicated previously. Involving stakeholders is also conducted to give preparation or information related to the school development so that the participation given is relevant to the school and community expectations around the school. In short, the involvement of the stakeholders also means strengthening the stakeholders in reinforcing the school program (Hopkins, 2015).

Important principles need to be considered by principals in strengthening MSF, namely: legitimacy, dialogue participation, effectiveness, and efficiency (Donny, 2018), as well as further reinforcement of human resources of the stakeholders (Huntjens et al., 2017; Warner, 2007). The goal is to augment the quality of interaction between schools and the community to achieve a higher quality school performance with the community.

Conclusion

This study uncovered several aspects that emerged in the investigation of effective leadership strategies based on local wisdom, namely (a) the problems met by the SATAP school principals in the remote area are significantly related to culture, economy, demography, geography, and historical aspects, and these problems cannot be solved partially but comprehensively, (b) the school principals with a high acceptance rate in the remote area are those who meet several criteria, such as having a clear vision, performing a high spirit, being andhab asor (low profile), involving actively into various social activities, having strong motivation for continuous learning, being open to feedback, having commitment to cooperate with various parties, having a high awareness that school is an educational system and the critical part from the social system in general, being persistent and never give up, having high confidence that they are not alone in carrying out school policies, creative, being able to see the context in various perspectives, patient, polite, warm, smart or attractive, (c) “Gethok Tular” is an effective strategy in performing the leadership role of the school principal for some reasons, namely (c1) a medium of information integrated in the traditional values which are still acknowledged and performed, (c2) a message delivery, mainly if delivered by particularly credible figures, (c3) a strategy that does not only bring “message delivery,” but also verification and validation of message, therefore it has a high level of trust, (c4) a strategy directing others to understand, invite, strengthen, and involve to carry out and convey information to others, and (d) the involvement of MSF members needs to be done selectively and effectively through the identification of TKU, intensive communication with TKU, identification of other figures, discussions, and sharing roles and strengthening MSF on an ongoing basis.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Bambang Budi Wiyono, MEd, Professor, the Dean of Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Malang, for assisting us and for giving us opportunity to involve in the faculty research program and for his comments that greatly improved the manuscript. We also like to show our gratitude to all principals, students’ parents, school committee, LPIKIPI officers, Coordinator of Education Administration Study Program and lectures of Universitas Palangkaraya Central Kalimantan, supervisors, Educational Department’s officers, and all people who involved in the FGD’s meetings and had been participated in this research for sharing ideas during this research. We are also immensely grateful to TPP (The Publication Acceleration Team) Universitas Negeri Malang, for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, although any errors are our own and should not tarnish the reputations of these esteemed persons. We thank our colleagues: Dr. Sultoni MEd, Dr. Imron Arifin, MEd, Associate Professor, Ahmad Nurabadi, MEd, Dr. Hardika, MEd, Associate Professor, who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This research was partially supported by the faculty of education, Universitas Negeri Malang.

ORCID iD

Juharyanto Juharyanto

Notes

References

Agbaria

A. K.

(2015). Arab civil society and education in Israel: The Arab Pedagogical Council as a contentious performance to achieve national recognition. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(5), 675–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.759930

Alladi

Vadari

(2011, December 16–18). Systemic approach to project management: A stakeholder’s perspective for sustainability [Conference session]. 2011 Annual IEEE India Conference: Engineering Sustainable Solutions, INDICON-2011, Hyderabad, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/INDCON.2011.6139635

Anderson

(2016). Leadership for school improvement [Doctoral thesis, Australian Catholic University]. https://doi.org/10.4226/66/5a9cc2feb0bb5

Arifin

Taufiq

. (2018). Islamic crash course as a leadership strategy of school principals in strengthening school organizational culture. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018799849

Arnold

M. L.

Newman

J. H.

Gaddy

B. B.

Dean

C. B.

(2005). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(6), 1–25. https://doi.org/1551-0670

Banks

J. A.

(1997). Multicultural education series: Educating citizens in a multicultural society. Teachers College Press.

Barnett

McCormick

(2004). Leadership and individual principal-teacher relationships in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 406–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03261742

Beare

Caldwell

B. J.

Millikan

R. H.

Caldwell

B. J.

Millikan

R. H.

(2018). Creating an excellent school: Some new management techniques. Routledge.

Belfield

C. R.

Levin

H. M.

(2015). Privatizing educational choice: Consequences for parents, schools, and public policy. Routledge.

10.

Bowe

Ball

S. J.

Gold

Ball

S. J.

Gold

(2017). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. Routledge.

11.

Cakir

Cetin

(2013). The effect of word of mouth communication on the consumers’ travel agency. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 5(1), 172–181.

12.

Crow

Day

Møller

(2017). Framing research on school principals’ identities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(3), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1123299

13.

Darmastuti

Bajari

Martodirdjo

H. S.

Maryani

. (2016). Gethok Tular, communication pattern of local wisdom-based social movement of Samin community in Sukolilo. Jurnal ASPIKOM, 3(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.24329/aspikom.v3i1.103

14.

Day

Sammons

(2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863

15.

Disterheft

Caeiro

Azeiteiro

U. M.

Filho

W. L.

(2015). Sustainable universities—A study of critical success factors for participatory approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.030

16.

Djibat

(2015). The development of quality schools based on local wisdom in ternate North Maluku. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 4(8), 82–86.

17.

Donny

B. U.

(2018). An introduction to internet governance. Jakarta: Ministry of Communication and Information of the Republic of Indonesia.

18.

Epstein

J. L.

(2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge.

19.

Faegerlind

Saha

L. J.

(2016). Education and national development: A comparative perspective. Elsevier.

20.

Findlay

R. A.

(2003). Interventions to reduce social isolation amongst older people: Where is the evidence? Ageing & Society, 23(5), 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X03001296

21.

Fleischmann

Meyr

Wagner

(2015). Advanced planning. In Stadtler

Kilger

(Eds.), Supply chain management and advanced planning: Concepts, models, software, and case studies (pp. 81–106). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74512-9

22.

Gibson

(2014). Principals’ and teachers’ views of spirituality in principal leadership in three primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502195

23.

Goddard

Sook Kim

Miller

(2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/681925

24.

Grankvist

Kajonius

(2015). Personality traits and values: A replication with a Swedish sample. International Journal of Personality Psychology, 1(1), 8–14.

25.

Griffiths

V. L.

(1968). Fundamental of educational planning: The problems of rural education. UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.

26.

Gurr

(2015). A model of successful school leadership from the international successful school principalship project. Societies, 5(1), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc5010136

27.

Hadi

. (2010). A Study of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices Exploration Responsibility and the Motives Involve (The Case of Go-Public Companies in the Indonesia Stock Exchange). https://publikasiilmiah.unwahas.ac.id/index.php/AKSES/article/view/524

28.

Hefni

. (2007). Buppa ‘-Bhabhu’-Ghuru-Rato (Constructivism-Structuralist study of compliance hierarchy in Madurese culture). Karsa, 11(1), 12–20.

29.

Hendrickson

W. A.

Lattman

E. E.

(1970). Representation of phase probability distributions for simplified combination of independent phase information. Acta Crystallographica Section B, 26(2), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0567740870002078

30.

Hopkins

(2015). Improving the quality of education for all: A handbook of staff development activities. Routledge.

31.

Huntjens

Lebel

Furze

(2017). The effectiveness of multi-stakeholder dialogues on water: Reflections on experiences in the Rhine, Mekong, and Ganga-Brahmaputhra-Meghna river basins. International Journal of Water Governance, 5(3), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.7564/15-IJWG98

32.

Hyson

(2013). The spirited leader: The potential of spiritual intelligence to improve leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 9(3–4), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLPS-10-2013-0028

33.

Ibukun

Oyewole

Abe

(2011). Personality characteristics and principal leadership effectiveness in Ekiti State, Nigeria. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 247–262. https://doi.org/1554-3145

34.

Jabuya

M. A.

Owuor

F. O.

Onsarigo

(2014). An evaluation on determinants of parental participation in implementation of academic projects in Kenya. A case of public secondary schools Kisumu County. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 3(2), 138–150.

35.

Juharyanto

. (2017). The excellent leadership of remote area elementary school principals (Multisitus Study of Primary Schools in Bondowoso Regency). Sekolah Dasar: Kajian Teori dan Praktik Pendidikan, 26(1), 89–100. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um009v26i12017p089

36.

Juharyanto

Arifin

Bafadal

Sobri

A. Y.

Nurabadi

(2018). Dominant leadership of school principals in the implementation of curriculum 2013 in religious based school Indonesia. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 2(4), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.31580/apss.v2i4.280

37.

Juharyanto

Sultoni

Arifin

Nurabadi

. (2019). Principal’s leadership in strengthening roles multi-stakeholders forum (Solutive Problems and Strategies for Improving Quality of One Roof Schools in Remote Areas). Elementary School: Sekolah Dasar: Kajian Teori dan Praktik Pendidikan, 28(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.17977/um009v28i12019p001

38.

Kemendikbud Perkuat Sekolah “Satu Atap.” (2016, August 4). TheTanjungpuraTimes. https://thetanjungpuratimes.com/2016/08/04/kemendikbud-perkuat-sekolah-satu-atap/

39.

Krasnoff

(2015). Leadership qualities of effective principals. https://nwcc.educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/research-brief-leadership-qualities-effective-principals.pdf

40.

Kurniawan

(2015). The Influence of Brand Trust and Customer Satisfaction on Brand Loyalty: Study of Iphone Users at the Faculty of Economics, Atma Jaya University, Yogyakarta. http://e-journal.uajy.ac.id/8251/1/EM018718.pdf

41.

Lumpkin

(2014). The role of organizational culture on and career stages of faculty. Educational Forum, 78(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2013.878420

42.

Martin

W. C.

(2017). Positive versus negative word-of-mouth: Effects on receivers. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 21(1), 1528–2678.

43.

Matthijs

Blyth

(2015). The future of the Euro. Oxford University Press.

44.

Mcculla

Degenhardt

(2016). Journeys to school leadership: How action learning identified what participants valued in a year-long Australian leadership development program centered on principles of good practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(4), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558574

45.

Munn

(2018). Parents and schools (1993) customers, managers or partners? Routledge.

46.

Murtedjo, & Suharningsih. (2018). The Role of Principal in Optimizing School Climate in Primary Schools. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 953(1).

47.

Mutale

(2015). Challenges facing school children in rural Zimbabwe: A case of Tyunga and Luunga Wards of Binga District. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(9), 32–39.

48.

National Association for Study of Education in Remote and Isolated Area. (2013). Education in remote and isolated areas in Japan.

49.

Nugroho

P. J.

(2014). Factors affecting the professionalism of teachers in remote areas in gunung mas regency, Central Kalimantan Province. Jurnal Pendidikan Lentera Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Bondowoso, 1(1), 19–36.

50.

Nurmalasari

Wulandari

(2018). Pengaruh Penggunaan Gadget Terhadap Tingkat Prestasi Sisswa SMP N Satu Atap Pakis Jawa Karawang. Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Dan Teknologi Komputer, 3(2), 211-218.

51.

Pan

H.-L. W.

Nyeu

F.-Y.

Chen

J. S.

(2015). Principal instructional leadership in Taiwan: Lessons from two decades of research. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2014-0006

52.

Postiglione

Jiao

Xiaoliang

(2012). Education change and development in nomadic communities of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). International Journal of Chinese Education, 1(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1163/221258612X644575

53.

Roberts

Buch

N. D.

(2016). No regrets in the evening of life: Access, equity and exclusivity at Junction Park State School in the early twentieth century. History of Education Review, 45(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/HER-03-2014-0023

54.

Sahni

(2015). Primary education in India: Progress & challenges. In The second Modi-Obama summit: Building the India-U.S. partnership (pp. 35–38). Brookings Institution Press. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Second-Modi-Obama-Summit-Briefing-Book.pdf

55.

Schrag

(2016). Thinking in school and society. Routledge.

56.

Sealander

Eigenberger

Peterson

Shellady

Prater

(2001). Challenges facing teacher educators in rural, remote, and isolated areas: Using what we know and what we have learned. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 20(1–2), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870501020001-204

57.

Sigurðardóttir

S. M.

Sigþórsson

(2016). The fusion of school improvement and leadership capacity in an elementary school. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(4), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214559230

58.

Spillane

J. P.

(1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63–87.

59.

Starr

White

(2008). The small rural school principalship: Key challenges and cross-school responses. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 23(5), 1–12.

60.

Suryono

(2013). Model Media Iklan Potensial Yang Tepat Sasaran Produk Unggulan UKM. Profetik, 6(2), 17–26.

61.

Tamrat Atsebeha

. (2016). Principals’ leadership styles and their effects on teachers’ performance in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia. University of South Africa.

62.

Tchibozo

(Ed.). (2013). Cultural and social diversity and the transition from education to work (Vol. 17). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5107-1

63.

The Ministry of National Education. (2007). Minister of National Education Regulation Number 13 of 2007 Concerning to School/Madrasah Principal Standards. https://bsnp-indonesia.org/id/wpcontent/uploads/tenaga/Permen_13_Th-2007.pdf

64.

Tilaar

H. A. R.

(1998). Beberapa agenda reformasi pendidikan nasional dalam perspektif abad 21. Indonesia Tera.

65.

Touraine

(2017). The academic system in American Society. Routledge.

66.

Trianton

(2015). In the wealth of Cablaka culture. IBDA’: Jurnal Kebudayaan Islam, 11(2), 211–226.

67.

Tveit

A. D.

Cameron

D. L.

Kovač

V. B.

(2014). “Two schools under one roof” in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Exploring the challenges of group identity and deliberative values among Bosniak and Croat students. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.03.004

68.

United Nations Development Programme. (2018). Human Development Reports: Human Development Indices and Indicators. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2018-update

69.

Urick

(2016). Examining US principal perception of multiple leadership styles used to practice shared instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(2), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2014-0088

70.

van Tulder

. (2011, January). From platform to partnership. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/77606

71.

Wahyono

S. B

. (2011). Optimization of information village program through institutional strengthening. Jurnal Penelitian IPTEKKOM, 13(2), 29–42.

72.

Warner

(2007). The beauty of the beast: Multi-stakeholder participation for integrated catchment management. In Warner

(Ed.), Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated water management (pp. 1–19). Routledge.

73.

Yuliastuti

Syukri

Martono

(2016). Kepemimpinan kepala sekolah dalam menyelenggarakn pendidikan sekolah satu atap di Kecamatan Kuala Mandor [Principals’ leadership in implementing one roof school in Kuala Mandor District]. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 5(2), 1–15.

74.

Zakub

Widodo

S. T.

Setiawan

(2018). The relevance between Javanese Pitutur Luhur and Islam Religiosity. IBDA’: Jurnal Kajian Islam dan Budaya, 16(1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.24090/ibda.v16i1.1659