Can schools really develop 'character'?<\/p>\n
Simon Marcus Gower
\nDirector of Research
\nand Development
\nHarapan Bangsa School
\nKotamodern, Tangerang<\/p>\n
Within the last 10 years or so, Indonesia has experienced the
\ngrowth of a phenomenon in its education system. A crop of schools
\nhas been established that offer education of an apparently higher
\nstandard than that which may be encountered at a national school.
\nAccordingly these schools have been afforded the title of
\n\"national plus schools.\"<\/p>\n
As privately run schools with generally better facilities and
\nstaff these schools are more expensive and are orientated towards
\nmore international standards and methods of education. Many offer
\nparallel programs that mean students may go on to either graduate
\nfrom the Indonesian national system or gain a certificate from
\nanother (foreign) curriculum such as Singapore or Australia.<\/p>\n
These schools represent a significant beneficial addition to
\nthe Indonesian schooling system. However, although they may be
\ndifferent in many respects there are still many similarities
\nbetween \"plus\" schools and the more familiar national schools.<\/p>\n
This is understandable as, after all, both segments of the
\nschooling population are working towards the same objective of
\nproviding an education.<\/p>\n
One striking similarity between these two types of schools is
\nthe manner in which their representatives set out an agenda for
\nproviding their students with \"character building\" education. In
\nvarying degrees schools of both types proclaim policies that
\ntarget \"character building\". But it is worth pausing for a moment
\nor two to consider just what this means.<\/p>\n
Whilst some schools may have a strong and positive perception
\nas to what is meant, there is a danger that the concept is being
\nsomewhat hijacked and wrongly attributed by students, teachers
\nand parents. There is a danger that \"character building\" is being
\nmisconstrued as another means of applying an over-zealous pursuit
\nof discipline and control.<\/p>\n
This kind of dictatorial mentality applied to character
\nbuilding is misplaced. If character building is merely about
\ndiscipline and control, then it is left as nothing more than a
\ndemand for conformity, demand for near mindless following rather
\nthan character based leadership.<\/p>\n
A definition of the word \"character\" is \"distinctive mark\";
\nfurther definitions include \"type of style\", \"individual
\nidiosyncrasy\", \"reputation\" and \"good reputation\". Each one of
\nthese definitions exhibits leanings towards the individual and
\nindividuality.<\/p>\n
Character in this sense recognizes and appreciates the
\nindividual. The uniqueness and goodness of the person is being
\nacknowledged.<\/p>\n
This is really rather contrary to any notions of controlling
\nand\/ or requiring conformity of the students. Yet many schools in
\nIndonesia would misconstrue character building as being about
\ncontrol and conformity. Consider the following examples, they
\nrepresent this kind of misappropriation of \"character building.\"<\/p>\n
In a promotional brochure for one school reference was made to
\nthe school's \"commitment to building the character of your
\nchild.\" This commitment was to be achieved by \"making sure that
\nthe child behaves properly, does not disturb the class and does
\nas the teacher tells him.\"<\/p>\n
There is not much doubt that what this school considers to be
\ncharacter, in fact, falls into the realms of conformity and
\ncontrol.<\/p>\n
At another Jakarta school a banner had been prepared that
\nclaimed that \"children's character will be developed through
\nobedience and respect for elders.\" Again, the message is clear --
\ncharacter is derived from control and those that obey. These are
\nnothing short of out-dated notions being applied to the slogan of
\n\"character building\".<\/p>\n
They are erroneous but worse still they undermine the concept
\nof character building as a potentially key element of education
\nprovision. Character building is essentially about giving each
\nstudent the opportunity to develop their own, individual
\ncharacter. By giving them experiences and environments in which
\nthey may explore their own selves and gain an understanding of
\nthemselves it becomes possible for the character to build. This
\nis a quite natural developmental thing; as a child grows it
\ngathers experiences and encounters that help form the character.<\/p>\n
In a real sense, then, character emerges as a consequence of
\ngood experiences and encounters with people and the world around
\nus. It is probably fair to observe that character is not so much
\ndeveloped by schools as it is developed in schools.<\/p>\n
Schools have to provide the opportunities and examples for
\nstudents that allow their characters to emerge and develop
\nnaturally. The notion that a school can and will instructively
\nand even intrusively build a child's character is bordering on
\nthe dangerous.<\/p>\n
Dictatorial slogans, that may be observed at some schools,
\nsuch as \"Obedience is the key to character\" are less about
\ncharacter development and far more about character control and
\nthe implanting of characteristics, whether good or bad.<\/p>\n
Certainly the concept of character building can and should
\ninclude appreciation of good character traits but these should
\nnot be forced or imposed. Again, an example illustrates the
\npoint. At a school claiming to target character building the
\nstudents were asked to offer any observations that they may have
\nabout their teachers.<\/p>\n
The number one observation from these high school students at
\na national school was that \"the teachers are nearly always late
\nfor class.\" It may seem but a small thing but surely one good
\ncharacter trait that \"character building schools\" should be
\nconcerned about is good time-keeping. However, by their teachers'
\nexample these students were in fact being exposed to bad
\ncharacter traits.<\/p>\n
Similarly an impatient teacher exemplifies poor character. At
\none Tangerang school a teacher gained a reputation as being
\nshort-tempered and easily angered if a student could not answer
\none of his questions. The teacher's poor character again
\ndetrimentally affecting the students through poor example.<\/p>\n
At the heart of education and the development of good
\ncharacter has to be the development of understanding.
\nUnderstanding both the academic challenges of school but also the
\nsocial challenges of living and working with other people.<\/p>\n
Just over 100 years ago Kartini wrote a letter to one of her
\nDutch correspondents in which she discussed knowledge and
\nunderstanding. In the letter she proposed that \"understanding
\nmakes you judge more mercifully, makes you forgive and makes you
\ngood.\"<\/p>\n
In the context of Indonesia's developing education sector, it
\nwould be wise for more people to take these sentiments to heart.
\nIt is simply insufficient for people to use dictatorial slogans
\nor marketing hype to promote growth and development.<\/p>\n
Particularly when it comes to thoughts on character building,
\nit is vital that education helps promote understanding -- which
\nin turn and over time will help people of good character to
\ndevelop.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/can-schools-really-develop-character-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}