Education reform: Mind over matter<\/p>\n
By Simon Marcus Gower<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Reform has become an extremely popular word in
\nIndonesia, but have its implication and accompanying objectives
\nbeen fully articulated, understood and explored?<\/p>\n
Is the concept of reform being swept away in a whirlwind of
\npopular hopes and aspirations, while true reform becomes a
\ndistant prospect?<\/p>\n
Clearly, any process of reform takes time, but it is
\nfundamentally important that reform be clearly placed within a
\nframework for change for the better. Reform that instills change
\nto improve the future rather than simply rejecting and being
\nreactionary to the past.<\/p>\n
To reform is to improve by alteration, to correct errors
\nthrough the removal of defects and to abolish abuse or
\nmalpractice.<\/p>\n
If the calls for reform are merely echoes of cries of
\nrejection of the past and not established upon solid grounds for
\na better future, then the reform process will be ill-founded and
\nliable to flounder in a quagmire of repeated mistakes.<\/p>\n
For Indonesia, what must surely be pursued is at least some
\nmanifestation of democracy and facilitating people with the
\npotential for betterment. Both of these conditions may be closely
\nallied to the achievement of a better system of education.<\/p>\n
However, democracy ought to be concerned with the empowerment
\nof people and a central means of empowering people is ensuring
\nthat they are educated.<\/p>\n
In turn, they may then empower themselves and others -- the
\nconcept and the ideal can grow to spread the benefits of
\neducation. Thus a key component in the creation of a reform
\nprocess ought to be reform of education for all Indonesians.<\/p>\n
Many have called for the reform of the education system in
\nIndonesia; but what are the objectives of such reform and how
\nmight such an objective be realized? Education is unquestionably
\nvital to a nation's life; but in Indonesia's case it would appear
\nthat the New Order's era devised and maintained a highly
\nstructured and controlled system of education that has rendered
\nthe current need for reform.<\/p>\n
As Nurcholish Madjid, rector of Paramadina Mulya University,
\ndescribed it in an interview (The Jakarta Post Nov. 18, 1998),
\nthe government's regimental approach of forcing all schools to
\naccomplish the government designed curricula... has led to the
\nadoption of a one-track, monolinear way of thinking. Thus the
\nexisting mode of education may be seen as a system of control
\nrather than one that empowers and liberates students to think for
\nthemselves in an original and progressive way.<\/p>\n
A notable development in the education planning for this
\nnation has been the desire to increasingly incorporate the use of
\nthe English language across the whole of the curricula; i.e. the
\nEnglish language will not only be taught as a subject in and of
\nits own right, but will also be used to teach other subjects.<\/p>\n
Such a development is, perhaps, a reflection of the desire to
\nreform and improve the education system, but is such a goal
\nrealistic and realizable within the actually of the Indonesian
\neducation system?<\/p>\n
The teaching of English alone in Indonesian schools is
\nevidently in need of considerable reform. As Chaedar Alwasilah
\nshowed in his two articles (The Jakarta Post Dec. 8 and Dec. 9
\n1998 respectively), the teaching of the English language in
\nIndonesia has also been subjected to a regimented education
\napproach.<\/p>\n
This has left the teaching of English in a state that has
\nquestionable relevance and value to the world in which Indonesia
\nand Indonesia's students alike must exist and attempt to prosper.<\/p>\n
Observations from personal experiences as a teacher in
\nIndonesia have shown me the consistency with which the existing
\nEnglish Language education system is indeed at the very least in
\nneed of reassessment in order to make syllabus objectives
\nrealizable given the realities of the resources available -- in
\nparticular teaching staff.<\/p>\n
Consistently, learners of the English language have been
\nencountered that have been put through the regimented approach to
\neducation that prevails. This, in the case of English language
\nlearning, means that their knowledge has been developed in a
\nhighly formal and grammar-oriented manner. So much so that they
\nhave developed a quite thorough knowledge of the language but
\nhave failed to become competent users of the language.<\/p>\n
What effectively has happened is that they have, to a limited
\ndegree, become linguists in their quite theoretical study of the
\nlanguage rather than being guided toward becoming practical users
\nof the language.<\/p>\n
As a consequence, one may experience the seeming anomaly of
\nencountering a learner of the language who possesses considerable
\nknowledge of the way the language is constructed, (that is its
\nstructure\/grammar), but is unable to communicate accurately and
\nin a reasonable, comprehensive manner due to a failure to educate
\nto bring that learner to a point where use of the language is as
\ndeveloped as theoretical knowledge.<\/p>\n
Recently I had occasion to speak at some length to two
\nlearners -- one who has attended an English course and would no
\ndoubt score well in a grammar test, the other has not attended an
\nEnglish course but in his day-to-day activities has to
\ncommunicate consistently in English.<\/p>\n
The former of these two lacked the creativity and sense of
\nfreedom to use the language he knew in an inventive and fluent
\nmanner, the latter, while probably possessing less knowledge of
\nthe grammar, enjoyed the sense of freedom and creativity to use
\nthe language and communicate with greater clarity and interest.<\/p>\n
Why should this situation prevail? Both of these people
\npossessed sufficient ability in the language to make their
\nmeaning understood, but the latter's communicative ability
\noutstripped that of the former's. It seems that the speaker with
\nthe greater communicative ability had been freed from the burden
\nof the closed and controlled thinking that is endemic in the
\nIndonesian education system.<\/p>\n
How can such problems be addressed? How can an anomaly such as
\nthat noted above be redressed?<\/p>\n
Creativity, independence and flexibility in education may go a
\nlong way in helping to redress these kinds of problems. A culture
\nof inclusion that encourages the students to be active
\nparticipants in their own education rather than merely passively
\nbeing spoon-fed and led in a controlled and mechanical way may be
\nbeneficial.<\/p>\n
Respect for an appreciation of the individual are critical
\nconcepts in developing an education system that enjoys a
\nsufficient degree of sophistication to be helping to bring
\nstudents to a point where they are both well educated and well
\nrounded people that may interact and succeed within their local
\ncommunities.<\/p>\n
Greater independence and flexibility for both schools and
\nteachers will allow them to better meet the specific needs of
\ntheir students.<\/p>\n
Can education reform really happen in Indonesia? Undoubtedly
\nthe challenges are great, but equally undoubtedly the will to
\nreform, to change for the better, does exist.<\/p>\n
Years of regimented education will have had a deep and lasting
\neffect and, as a consequence, true reform will take time to
\nemerge. The need for change may be considerable and, given the
\nincreasingly information-based and globalized nature of our
\nworld, change may be required quickly and efficiently.<\/p>\n
However, time need not necessarily be seen as an enemy here.
\nAll nations, no matter how democratic and developed they may
\nseem, have evolving systems of education.<\/p>\n
A key element of a sophisticated system of education is its
\nability to accommodate change and improve as a consequence. Thus
\nthe desire for reform should be welcomed and viewed positively as
\nan aspect of growth for a developing nation.<\/p>\n
But patience and a carefully considered reform process for
\neducation in particular ought to be applied. The value of
\neducation is inestimable. Aristotle, when asked what the
\ndifference between an educated man and an uneducated man was,
\nanswered: "The same difference as between being alive and being
\ndead."<\/p>\n
Indeed, perhaps one of the greatest of human rights is that of
\nthe right to an education; perhaps in our modern age more than
\nany time before.<\/p>\n
The desire for education reform in Indonesia is commendable
\nand right. Through appropriate application of this will for
\nchange, reform can and almost inevitably will occur, but
\nrealistic objectives need to be set.<\/p>\n
Genuine reform takes time, and worthy and workable change for
\nthe better needs to be given time to evolve. Flexibility and
\ninclusion ought to be valued in this reform era, rather than the
\nrigidity and control of the New Order era.<\/p>\n
The writer is a director of Academic English at International
\nUniversity Transfer Programs in Jakarta<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/education-reform-mind-over-matter-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}