In search of a quality education at public schools<\/p>\n
Mateus Yumarnamto, Surabaya<\/p>\n
In the discussion on the future of the national examination
\nwhich was held by Forum Wartawan Peduli Pendidikan (Journalists'
\nForum for Education) and Balitbang Departemen Pendidikan Nasional
\n(the R & D Unit of the National Education Department) on Tuesday,
\nFeb. 8, 2005 in Jakarta, Ki Supriyoko said there was an urgent
\nneed for an independent institution to be responsible for the
\nnational examination.<\/p>\n
Referring to a similar body in the Philippines, he asserted
\nthat the institution should be responsible for measuring and
\nevaluate the competence of junior and senior high school
\ngraduates and at the same time assess the national standard of
\neducation. His acknowledged that the national examination was
\nstill needed, but it should be held more professionally by an
\nindependent institution that included professional teachers and
\neducators.<\/p>\n
This statement is linked to the condition of our education
\nsystem, which has lagged behind many Asian countries. We are
\nbadly in need of higher quality education. Imagine, the passing
\ngrade for the national exams last year was only 4,05 (this year
\nit will be 4,25) and many students failed the exams.<\/p>\n
It means a student could pass the examination with a pass
\ngrade of less than 50 percent and many still had trouble passing
\nit. In this case, there may be two possibilities, either the
\nstandard for the exams was too high, or the schools simply failed
\nto achieve the minimum national standard. In this case, the later
\nis more probable.<\/p>\n
However, we are not alone in lamenting over the bad condition
\nof education. Even in the U.S., the National Governors
\nAssociation has lamented the paltry skills of many high school
\ngraduates. Many high schools graduates lack the basic skills
\nrequired by colleges and employers. So, despite criticism from
\neducators and teachers, the governors are calling for more
\nrigorous standards and harder exams than states have already
\nimposed, often with considerable difficulty (The New York Times,
\nFeb. 23, 2005). Not only the governors are insisting on higher
\nstandards, many others have demanded an overhaul of the education
\nsystem as a whole.<\/p>\n
What about ours? Our education system does need improvement.
\nHowever, it cannot only hinge on the national examination. Like
\nin U.S. where exit tests have been criticized -- many struggling
\nstudents will be more likely to drop out and teachers will simply
\nteach for the test at hand, hampering the development of broader
\nskills, our national examination might have the same effect.
\nTherefore, improving the quality of education by focusing on the
\nnational examination is like putting the cart before the horse.<\/p>\n
The premise of developing the national education system has
\nbeen wrong from the very beginning. It is based on the principle
\nof uniformity and assumes that all students are the same: they
\nhave the same talents and abilities and the same opportunities
\nand access to education.<\/p>\n
In reality, students have diverse talents, interests and level
\nof intelligence. We have a normal curve in which most students
\nfall into the average domain and the rest occupy both poles. In
\nterms of opportunity and access to higher education, the poor,
\nwho are increasing in number, have less opportunity to gain
\naccess to higher education.<\/p>\n
Therefore, promoting high schools instead of vocational
\nschools both at the senior and junior high levels is against the
\nreality. Equipping high school students with vocational-skills
\nand at the same time with academic skills -- as suggested by
\nCurriculum 2004, will not be effective.<\/p>\n
Moreover, not all students want to continue their education.
\nOf all high school graduates, less than 30 percent go to higher
\neducation institutions. The others will jump into the job market,
\nwhich does not welcome them as they lack competence in the world
\nof information technology.<\/p>\n
Promoting vocational schools that offer various vocational
\nskills is more urgent and more relevant to our situation than
\nlulling low academic achievers into dreaming of higher education.
\nWe should just allow them to develop their talents. Those who
\nhave academic potential should be helped to go to universities
\nand especially to teacher training colleges while the others can
\ndevelop their talents and pursue their interests in vocational
\nschools, that should be opened in all districts based on global
\nstandards and local knowledge.<\/p>\n
In this way, we can kill two birds with one stone; develop
\nskilled workers for the job market and improve the quality of
\nteachers for the future. This is one step toward developing a
\nquality national education system.<\/p>\n
Encouraging reform in education through promoting vocational
\nschools will be useless if our society still overrates academic
\ndegrees. We have to educate the society, especially parents. Many
\nof them put too much hope and unrealistic burdens on their
\nchildren.<\/p>\n
Instead of enrolling their children who have not done well
\nacademically in vocational schools, parents tend to force them on
\nto higher education. Unfortunately, many higher education
\ninstitutions grab this chance by offering them special seats at a
\npremium price.<\/p>\n
Who will take the responsibility for educating society? The
\nanswer is all of us, including the government, the mass media and
\neducational institutions. We cannot institutionalize priyayi's
\nview that overrates degrees and titles. Instead, we have to
\nrespect professionalism regardless of the educational background
\nof the person.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the teacher training school at
\nWidya Mandala Catholic University in Surabaya. He can be reached
\nat mateus@mail.wima ac.id<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/in-search-of-a-quality-education-at-public-schools-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}