MANAGEMENT OF LABORATORY SCHOOLS BY THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF THE FORMER EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL EDUCATION INSTITUTE (LPTK / IKIP)

The aim of this research is to look into the legal perspective on laboratory management by the State University in Indonesia, the former The Educational Personnel Education Institute (LPTK / IKIP). The site that becomes the object of this study is “Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia” (UPI, Bandung) which organizes a Laboratory School in the form of a formal school which includes primary and secondary education. UPI laboratory school strives to provide educational services to students according to their expectations (vision and mission of the laboratory school), becoming a forum for the development of various professional teachers and educational practices. In addition, schools can also become models for creative and innovative learning practices by professional teacher candidates in collaboration with the relevant LPTK (Educational Institutions) and Provincial, Regency / City Education Offices. The results of the study concluded that the authority to manage formal education units at the levels of PAUD / TK, SD, SMP, and SMA, rests with the regency / city government and the provincial government or the community as the organizing institution, not the authority of higher education. If the UPI Laboratory School is a formal school, then UPI must establish an organizing legal entity.


INTRODUCTION
As for the dynamics of the problem which is the basis for the need for a study from a legal perspective, because there is a public interest that questions the legality of organizing UPI laboratory schools in the form of formal schools. From the author's observations, this problem has been identified internally at UPI, and has reached the Bandung City Education Office and the West Java Provincial Education Office.
According to historical facts, an important event occurred on August 4, 2003, in the Indonesian Education University (UPI), which is the official handover of KORPRI Junior and Senior High School from the KORPRI Welfare Foundation to the Rector. This incident marked the re-realization of an old idea and the presence of a laboratory school in a college whose overall goal to ensure quality education and teacher training. The idea of attending a laboratory school coincided with the formation of PTPG (Teacher Education Higher School) which later became FKIP A and B and later changed to IKIP (Institute of Teacher Training and Educational Sciences) in 1961 before it became UPI.
The policy is a legal strategy implemented by the government and used to fulfil community rights sequentially. Thomas Dye (1981) stated that what governments want to do or not do is referred to as public policy. This means that public policy is the various decisions made and the government's actions in responding to citizens' wants and needs, by offering suggestions or by remaining quiet and doing nothing.). However, it needs to be noted that policies are made as an effort to fulfil people's rights, overcome various problems and find solutions.
The laboratory school (lab school) is designed to provide educational services for students, train prospective professional teachers and develop various educational innovations. Furthermore, in collaboration with the LPTK and the associated Regency/City Education Office, this school will serve as a model for providing creative and innovative learning activities for future skilled teachers. Therefore, laboratory schools play a good role as institutions that provide educational services to students in accordance with applicable regulations, acts as a place for developing professional teachers and for the development of various educational innovations.
Before now, the laboratory school already has 16 (sixteen) units starting from Day Care, Playgroups, Kindergarten, Elementary to High School. However, there were no standard regulations in organizing laboratory schools. Therefore, based on this analysis, laboratory schools as an inseparable part of the LPTKs need to be positioned as an integral part of the educational system in managing professional teachers. Furthermore, regulation needs to be designed and developed as a built-up package in the development and management of the lab school.  stated that public policy is always related to the community interests, therefore, policies issued by the central and regional governments are very important and need to be properly guided in order to achieve public interest. Studies on UPI laboratory schools are in line with Article 38 of Government Regulation Number 15 of 2014 concerning the Statute of the Indonesian University of Education. According to paragraph (1) of the regulation, "In the context of developing teachers, UPI manages and organizes laboratory schools." Furthermore, the provisions referred to in paragraph (1) governing laboratory schools were governed by the Regulation of the Board of Trustees. For instance Article 102 Regulation of the Board of Trustees Number 03 /PER/MWA UPI/2015 concerning the Implementation of Government Regulation Number 15 of 2014 concerning the Statute of the Indonesian University of Education), which stated that UPI manages and organizes laboratory schools while carrying out its functions. UPI forms a legal entity with other institutions and specific functions as a laboratory school organizing institution.  reported that a clear direction is needed in determining a regulation concerning the public interest. However, this research aims to examine the UPI laboratory schools implementation from a legal perspective. It has a theoretical advantage for determining theories in the authority concept to organize formal education units for primary and secondary schools, which can be utilized by educational institutions (LPTK).
In practice, this research can be used as material for considering policy authorities, including the central and regional governments (provincial and city/regency) as well as internal parties of UPI and other state universities (LPTK). Therefore, based on this discussion, there is need to carry out a study from the legal and public policy perspective for UPI laboratory schools, in order to determine suitable regulations for the existence of laboratory schools under the LPTK.
From a public policy perspective, as Bestari (2020) said, that all labschools in LPTKs (Teacher Training Institutes) are still in trouble, so a solution is needed from a public policy perspective. LPTK laboratories are all private, although LPTKs are state. UPI (University of Education Indonesia), UNJ (State University of Jakarta), UNP (State University of Padang), and UNDIKSHA (University of Ganesha Education), have all experienced it. Therefore, it is closely related to the legal perspective as a public discourse in an effort to solve the problem in question (p. 250).

METHOD
This study uses the normative juridical method, because, as stated by Riyanto (2006, p. 22) "in conducting the study in this research it focuses on aspects and analysis of laws and regulations". This opinion was corroborated by Bagir Manan (in Riyanto, 2006, p. 22) that "normative research is research on legal principles and principles (positive law), positive law (laws and regulations)", and also strengthened by Soekanto and Mamudji. (1986, p. 15) asserts that "this normative legal research includes research on the level of vertical and horizontal synchronization".
Meanwhile, the meaning of an empirical juridical approach is carried out by examining the facts that exist in the field. This method is also known as a sociological method because it is used in the field). In other words, in this study the researchers were looking for appropriate laws related to the implementation of lab school schools under the LPTK. So to solve the problem, researchers need field observations, especially at UPI Labschool Schools.
Researchers also need research other than in the field, namely library research, by exploring theories and laws in positive law and statutory regulations that have a strong connection with the implementation of UPI lab school schools based on the formulations made. So that these two

Study in Legal Perspective on UPI aboratory Schools
The implementation of education in Indonesia from a legal perspective is an attributive authority given to (1) local governments that organize formal early childhood education, primary and secondary education units; (2) The ministry which administers government affairs in the field of religion shall organize formal early childhood education units, primary and secondary education; (3) The ministry which organizes the higher education unit; and (4) communities that organize formal early childhood education units, primary, secondary, and / or tertiary education, through legal entities in the form of, among others, foundations, associations, and other similar bodies (see Article 60 paragraph (2)  The management autonomy and the authority to provide education is clearly and firmly regulated in Law No. 20 of 2003 concerning the National Education System Article 50 paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) as follows: Paragraph (4): Provincial governments coordinate the implementation of education, development of educational personnel, and provision of crossregency / municipal education delivery facilities for primary and secondary education levels.
Paragraph (5) Regency / city governments manage primary and secondary education, as well as education units based on local excellence. Paragraph (6) Tertiary education institutions determine policies and have autonomy in managing education in their institutions.
Furthermore, it is emphasized in Article 60 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Government Regulation Number 66 of 2010 concerning Amendments to Government Regulation Number 17 of 2010 concerning Management and Implementation of Education, as follows.
Article 60 paragraph (1): The delivery of formal education includes: a. early childhood education programs; b. basic education; c. middle education; and d. higher education.
Article 60 paragraph (2): Educational unit administrators consist of: a. local governments that organize formal early childhood education units, primary and secondary education; b. The ministry which administers government affairs in the field of religion organizes early childhood education units for formal, primary and secondary education; c. The ministry which organizes the higher education unit; and d. a community that organizes an early childhood education unit through formal, primary, secondary, and / or tertiary education, through a legal entity in the form of, among others, foundations, associations, and other similar bodies.
Based on the phenomenon of the management authority of Laboratory Schools (Lab School) in ex-LPTK educational institutions (formerly IKIP), namely UPI which at this time has become a legal entity State University, by taking into account Article 38 paragraph (1) Government Regulation Number 15 of 2014 concerning Statutes Indonedia University of Education, that "In the context of developing teacher education and education personnel, UPI manages and organizes laboratory schools", which in practice is a formal school, it appears that there is an overlapping authority between local government authorities -which is in direct contact with the basic education infrastructure. and middle school within their jurisdiction -with the authority of higher education institutions that focus on developing higher education science.
Therefore, for UPI itself this will set a precedent, because from the aspect of management accountability and its implementation, it will cause doubts and confusion for UPI and the community as stakeholders. Because, on the one hand, UPI must report and / or be accountable for the implementation of higher education to the central government through the Minister in charge of higher education. On the other hand, with the existence of laboratory schools as formal schools ranging from PAUD / Kindergarten to Senior High Schools, institutionally UPI must also be accountable for the management of its schools to the City / Regency Education Office and the Provincial Education Office.
Furthermore, the community interests as stakeholders are faced with the problem of principle regarding the status of the institution, whether UPI Lab School is a public or a private school. Questions such as, what is the legal basis of the UPI Lab School as a public school? Similarly, assuming it is a private school, are the questions similar to the legal basis?
The question above is important, because as Bestari (2020 suggests, that in LPTK, there is a problem with the position of the school laboratory. Based on research findings, Laboratory Schools in LPTKs are experiencing major difficulties in the form of the status or position of Laboratory Schools. Because the School Laboratory is sandwiched between the LPTK and the relevant Education Office in terms of its implementation when dealing with Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government (p. 253).
It is understood that the Laboratory School is one of UPI's academic supports to develop educational innovations, management practices, and learning models by organizing education at the early childhood education, primary education and secondary education (PAUD / TK, SD, SMP, and SMA). Therefore, in such positions, the Laboratory School can be used as a "candradimuka crater" for students to explore their abilities and skills. Therefore, they can become qualified and professional teachers with a variety of multitalented students.
According to Article 41 paragraph (1) of Law Number 12 Year 2012 concerning Higher Education which states that "Learning resources in a higher education environment must be provided, facilitated, or owned by Tertiary Education Institutions in accordance with applicable regulations. The study program that is developed ", as a learning resource in higher education is an obligation to provide. Meanwhile, what is meant by laboratory (see Big Indonesian Dictionary) is a certain place or room equipped with equipment for conducting experiments. The problem is that the Laboratory School which is meant for the benefit of UPI is the management and implementation of formal education programs.
Furthermore, based on the provisions of the prevailing laws and regulations, that the authority to manage education for the primary and secondary education levels is the authority of the regional governments both at the provincial and regency / city levels (see Article 50 paragraph (4), paragraph (5), and paragraph (6). Law Number 20 of 2003 concerning the National Education System). Based on Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government, the management of secondary education is the authority of the provincial regional government, while the management of basic education is the authority of the regency / city government (see a. Management of primary education. b. Management of early childhood and non-formal education.

Curriculum
Determination of the national curriculum for secondary education, primary education, early childhood education and non-formal education.
Determination of local content curriculum for secondary education and local content for special education.
Determination of local content curriculum for primary education, early childhood education, and non-formal education. 3.
Accreditation Accreditation of higher education, secondary education, primary education, early childhood education, and non-formal education.
------ Development of language and literature, whose speakers are in cross regencies / cities areas within a province.
Development of language and literature whose speakers are in the regency/city. Table 1. shows the parties and their respective authorities. However, this authority is not solely owned by the provincial and regency / city governments. This means that other institutions can manage and administer education at the primary and secondary education levels as long as they coordinate with the education offices in the provincial and regency / city governments. Because based on the applicable provisions, namely Government Regulation Number 66 of 2010 concerning Amendments to Government Regulation Number 17 of 2010 concerning Management and Implementation of Education, Article 60 paragraph (2) letter d, emphasizes that, "Administrators of educational units consist of: the community that organizes education. Early childhood education units through formal, basic, secondary, and / or higher education channels, through legal entities in the form of, among others, foundations, associations, and other similar bodies". Therefore, it is not the authority of Higher Education to provide education at the primary and secondary levels, according to the National Education System Law (Sisdiknas) and Regional Government Law. Higher education institutions need to academically have a Laboratory School as a formal education unit, legally have to form a separate legal entity as an educational provider at the unit level.

Table 1. Division of Government Affairs in the Education Sector
Based on the provisions of Article 9 paragraph (1) of Law As a legal consequence of the entity formation, it needs to possess separate assets, with independent organizations consisting of rights and obligations, that are sustainable in carrying out the objectives of its legal entity. In accordance with the provisions in Article 102 paragraph (4) of MWA Regulation Number 03 / PER / MWA UPI / 2015 concerning Implementation Regulations of Government Regulation Number 15 of 2014 concerning the Statute of the Indonesia University of Education, emphasizes that "UPI establishes a legal entity as a supporting implementing unit which is specifically as the governing body for laboratory schools ". Because UPI is a legal entity, UPI has the authority to form a foundation as the governing body for laboratory schools. However, legally, the Foundation is an institution outside the UPI structure, so that the status of laboratory schools as formal education units managed by the Foundation is private schools.
In connection with the Foundation in the UPI MWA policy, laboratory schools and LPTKs are also inseparable from the main duties of the LPTK, namely providing education for prospective educational staff (pre-service education) and educational personnel (education in office) at all levels of education and expertise (Suparman, 2016). The government has implemented various policies to encourage education in Indonesia by improving the standard of LPTKs and creating opportunities for LPTKs to open the PPG (Teacher Professional Education, writer) study program as a driving system to produce professional teaching staff. However, it is useless if many LTPKs only look for "quantity", it is impossible to create professional teachers who are able to answer the challenges of this millennial era. There are several things that must be considered. LPTKs consider the revitalization of their role and existence in producing professional teachers, including: 1. LPTKs work together with other LPTKs to support each other in achieving educational goals. 2. LPTK prepares graduates who are professional in both academic and non-academic fields. (Rokhman, Ahmadi, & Dewi, 2017).).
The laboratory school in the LPTK shows its characteristics, namely being a location where different teaching and instructional activities can be developed in teacher professional education, and a location where educational technologies can be developed. One example of the function of Laboratory Schools for LPTK is implementing PPL (Field Experience Program), this functions as an introduction and development of the identity of prospective teachers, this is as expressed by (Bhakti & Maryani, 2017) Teacher Education in levels from Academic education (S-1) ) and Professional Education as an inseparable unit. In developing the identity of prospective teachers, an introduction to the world of school from the start, at the level of academic education it is called apprenticeship, while in professional education it is called PPL (Field Experience Program).
With the formation of a foundation to carry out the management and operation of the UPI Laboratory School, the Chancellor is no longer directly involved in the management and operation of the Laboratory School, so the Chancellor can focus on managing and administering higher education which is the identity of the Indonesian Education University. Although each institution has certain uniqueness, this will also make a difference in the management of the organization's administration (Paisey & Alan-Smith, 1982). The level of inclusiveness of the management concept is crucial from the start. At the organizational level, every organization is distinct in some way. Then Paisey and Alan-Smith added that aspects of organizational differences can be considered as an effort to give the management a name) of the school administration, the differences starting from managerial activities required to operate educational organizations in terms of reach, size, and types. Various stakeholders function as a container maker that helps incipient innovations become an influential and attention-grabbing school management style (Peck & Reitzug, 2012) However, because a foundation is subject to its own legal regime, while assets in the form of land and buildings and other infrastructure are owned by the State / UPI, so as to safeguard assets both physically and juridically it is necessary to have a bond between UPI and the Foundation.
In a legal perspective, based on legal principles, among others, that the regulations do not contradict one another; based on the principles of statutory regulations, among others, that one law / regulation cannot be exchanged for the level of position / lex superior derogate lex inferior (regulations made by officials of a higher position have a higher position as well, Lower regulations must not conflict with higher-level regulations, and higher-level regulations cannot be changed / abolished by regulations of a lower position; and there is a positive legal system in a country if it is found: (1) there is a regulatory structure that is arranged in a structure (hierarchical) broken down into sections; (2) the parts of the upper regulations become and provide the basis for the preparation of lower regulations; (3) the lower regulations refer to dab obedience principle to the rules that are above it or a higher level. (Riyanto, 2010, p. 380-382). This is in line with the opinion of Lubis (2009), that in all laws and regulations in the country of Indonesia, there is a rank of legal regulations which is also called the hierarchy of regulations or levels or levels of that regulation. In terms of ranking, the principle of law (rechtsbeginsel) applies, namely: Lex superior derogat inferior means that "higher regulations beat lower regulations. That is, in regulating the same thing, the lower rules (lex inferior) must not conflict with the higher rules (p. 20).
Based on the legal principles above, the UPI internal regulations as previously described, Thus, the legitimacy value of the internal party itself is an indication that the management of the labschool has quite confusing problems from the legal aspect.
Legitimacy according to Wargadinata (2017, p. 90) is defined as the acceptance of parties internal as the party that will conduct the assessment. Acceptance, internal understanding of measurement to be used is considered as a mandatory condition fulfilled by a measuring instrument because internal parties understand the nature, characteristics of the organization. Legitimacy conceptually defined as internal acceptance organization for the measurements to be carried out.
Referring to the Elucidation of Article 5 of Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of Legislation, that based on the Principle of its Formation, the regulation must really pay attention to the content that is in accordance with the type and hierarchy of statutory regulations. It was also explained that based on the Material Principle, every material in the legislation must be able to create order in society by guaranteeing legal certainty.
Based on the source of authority to organize early childhood education, basic education, and secondary education (PAUD / TK  Based on the principle of legality, authority is a main principle that is used as the basis for every government administration. In the field of state administrative law, the principle of legality means that the government is subject to the law and all provisions that bind citizens must be based on law (Ridwan, 2011, pp. 94-95). The application of the legality principle will support the enforcement of legal certainty and equal treatment.
The equality of treatment occurs because every person who is in a situation as determined in the provisions of the law has the right and obligation to act as stipulated in the law. Meanwhile, legal certainty will occur because a regulation can make an action that the government will take can be predicted or predicted in advance (Indroharto, 1993, pp. 83-84).
One aspect of legal life is certainty (Rahadjo, 2014, p. 81). Therefore, legal protection of society… must be realized in the form of legal certainty (Rahardjo, 1983, p. 121). In line with Rahardjo's opinion, the law must provide legal protection for citizens. FH van Der Burg and friends said: De mogelijkheden can rechtsberscherming zijn van belang wanneer de overheid iets heeft gedaan of nagelaten of voornemens is bepaalde handelingen te verrichten en bepaalde personen of groepen zich daardoor gegriefd achten (The possibility to provide legal protection It is important when the government intends to take or does not take certain actions against something, which because of its actions or negligence violates the (rights) of certain people or groups) (Ridwan, 2011, pp. 281-282).
Legal certainty and protection were regulated normatively in the 1945 Constitution in accordance with Article 28D paragraph (1) which stated that "everyone has the right to the recognition, assurances, security, and legal certainty of a just and equitable law." It is further elaborated that "everyone has the right to recognition, assurances, security, fair legal care, legal certainty, and equal treatment before the law," according to Article 3 paragraph (2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights.
From the problem conditions as described above, policy demands have been created. What is meant by policy demands here, according to Wahab (2015), is demands or pressure directed at government officials made by other actors, both private and within the government itself. (p. 24).)

CONCLUSION
In line with the problem formulation and the results regarding the legality of organizing the UPI laboratory school from the perspective of the applicable laws and regulations, the following conclusions were obtained.
Firstly, the authority to manage a Laboratory School if it is a formal education unit -at the levels of early childhood education, primary education and secondary education (PAUD / TK, SD, SMP, and SMA) is in line with Law Number 20 of 2003 concerning the Education System. National, and Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government, as well as Government Regulation Number 66 of 2010 concerning Amendments to Government Regulation Number 17 of 2010 concerning Management and Implementation of Education are the authority of the regency / city government and the provincial government or the community as the organizing agency, not the authority of higher education.) Secondly, in the context of Teaching School, if the UPI Lab School is a formal school, UPI can manage and organize education at the levels of early childhood education, basic education, and secondary education (PAUD / TK, SD, SMP, and SMA) by forming an agency Organizer law.
Thirdly, the legal entity that will organize the UPI Laboratory School as a formal education unit at the levels of early childhood education, primary education and secondary education (PAUD / TK, SD, SMP, and SMA) is a "Foundation" whose establishment procedures refer to the Law.