Conclusion In this paper we shed so

Conclusion
In this paper we shed some light on the question of how to identify the most effective school with respect to achievements, attendance, social activities and projects criteria in the scope of a local education project. For this purpose, PROMETHEE multi criteria decision making method was applied. On the basis of a restricted dataset gathered from five of secondary school and two of high school, the comparison employing PROMETHEE yields evaluation results that are considerably inconsistent in case assumptions are modified.
If only schools were evaluated according to weighted criteria, we might possess more accurate results, so the shortcoming of the study is that equal weights were allocated to criteria thanks to lack of sufficient knowledge about appropriate weightings. PROMETHEE does not assist decision-maker for assigning proper weights. For this reason, AHP features can combine with PROMETHEE. The weights obtained from AHP can be included in performance evaluation process by using them in PROMETHEE computations and the alternative schools can be prioritized based on these weights. This may improve the proposed method and is one of the directions in our future research. Another point is that schools were evaluated with respect to only four criteria related to school results at the end of semester. In fact, there are many of other performance indicators in school effectiveness literature. In case different criteria are taken into account, performance ranking of schools may diversify.
Apart from some weaknesses regarding the method as well as the criteria employed in this analysis, this paper shows the potential of PROMETHEE not only for evaluation of schools as a controlling mechanism in general, but also for a self-assessment tool in particular. Our results might be useful as the starting point of a more effective allocation of resources and subsidies. Additionally, conducting such a performance comparison on a periodic basis (eg annual or biannual) would create a time series of evaluation results to provide detailed information for policy makers and school administrators regarding the dynamics of school effectiveness that is, how the ranking order has changed over time.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Kesimpulan Dalam karya ini kita memberi penjelasan pada pertanyaan tentang bagaimana mengidentifikasi sekolah paling efektif terhadap prestasi, kehadiran, kegiatan sosial dan proyek kriteria dalam lingkup proyek pendidikan setempat. Untuk tujuan ini, PROMETHEE multi kriteria keputusan membuat metode diterapkan. Berdasarkan dataset dibatasi dikumpulkan dari lima dari sekolah lanjutan dan dua sekolah tinggi, perbandingan mempekerjakan PROMETHEE menghasilkan hasil evaluasi yang jauh tidak konsisten dalam kasus asumsi yang dimodifikasi. Jika hanya sekolah dievaluasi sesuai dengan kriteria yang berbobot, kita mungkin memiliki hasil yang lebih akurat, sehingga kekurangan dari penelitian bahwa bobot yang sama yang dialokasikan untuk kriteria berkat kurangnya pengetahuan yang memadai tentang bobot tambahan sesuai. PROMETHEE tidak membantu pembuat keputusan untuk menentukan bobot yang tepat. Untuk alasan ini, fitur AHP dapat menggabungkan dengan PROMETHEE. Bobot yang Diperoleh dari AHP dapat dimasukkan dalam proses evaluasi kinerja dengan menggunakan mereka dalam perhitungan PROMETHEE dan sekolah-sekolah alternatif dapat diprioritaskan berbasis di bobot ini. Ini dapat meningkatkan metoda yang diusulkan dan salah satu arah dalam penelitian masa depan kami. Poin lain adalah bahwa sekolah dievaluasi sehubungan dengan hanya empat kriteria yang berhubungan dengan hasil sekolah di akhir semester. Pada kenyataannya, ada banyak indikator kinerja lainnya dalam sekolah efektivitas sastra. Dalam kasus kriteria yang berbeda diperhitungkan, kinerja peringkat sekolah dapat diversifikasi. Apart from some weaknesses regarding the method as well as the criteria employed in this analysis, this paper shows the potential of PROMETHEE not only for evaluation of schools as a controlling mechanism in general, but also for a self-assessment tool in particular. Our results might be useful as the starting point of a more effective allocation of resources and subsidies. Additionally, conducting such a performance comparison on a periodic basis (eg annual or biannual) would create a time series of evaluation results to provide detailed information for policy makers and school administrators regarding the dynamics of school effectiveness that is, how the ranking order has changed over time.