Translating political agenda into educational reform<\/p>\n
Mochtar Buchori, Jakarta<\/p>\n
A number of friends complained to me about the slow reaction
\nof the education community to address public demands for
\nimprovements in our political life. The public, at present,
\ndemands a life without corruption, collusion and nepotism. It
\nalso wants to see an end to the use of violence, especially in
\nmatters related to our life as a multicultural society.<\/p>\n
In addition, the people also demand that our politicians
\nbehave in a more decent manner, and stop deceiving the public.
\nWhat is the response of educators to all these legitimate
\ndemands? What kind of educational reforms are our educational
\nauthorities planning to make so that these political dreams come
\ntrue?<\/p>\n
\"None,\" complained one of my friends. \"You guys in education
\nare either insensitive toward public sentiment, or you are just a
\nbunch of politically retarded people.\" I was dumbfounded by this
\nangry remark<\/p>\n
I must admit that these politically hyperactive friends have
\ntheir reasons to be frustrated, and that a large part of their
\nfrustration is indeed valid. What they may not know, though, is
\nthat political aspirations or dreams cannot be instantly
\nconverted into the educational agenda. A sound educational agenda
\ncan never be based on political wishes or political commands. No
\nmatter how legitimate or how urgent these wishes may be, they
\nhave to be converted first into a format that fits the demands of
\neducational planning.<\/p>\n
The greatest difficulty in this regard is the difference in
\nthe mode of expression between politics and education. In
\npolitics, aspirations are expressed in terms of accomplishments.
\nBut in education, programs are expressed in terms of potential
\nand processes.<\/p>\n
Thus, when the public expresses its determination to put an
\nend to corruption, people in education ask what kind of
\neducational processes must be designed to make future generations
\nincreasingly dislike and abhor corruption. When the public
\ndeclares a sincere wish to stop violence at home and in public
\nlife, people in education have to think of a series of steps
\nthat, within a given time interval, will prepare younger
\ngenerations to become increasingly more capable of solving
\nproblems through peaceful means.<\/p>\n
Examples concerning this conceptual gap between political and
\neducational thinking can be extended endlessly. Suffice it to say
\nthat the necessary slow response of education to political
\ndecisions is caused mainly by the fact that a number of rules
\nmust be observed in translating the political agenda into
\neducation.<\/p>\n
One of these rules is that a political agenda must first be
\ntranslated in a holistic manner to become a good educational
\nprogram. What must be translated is thus a political agenda in
\nits entirety, not elements within it. In our present situation,
\nwe have then to ask, \"What does the public really want with its
\nvarious debates about political change?\"<\/p>\n
If my understanding is correct, what the public wants is
\nessentially to see a three-pronged change in our life as a
\nnation, i.e. substantial and substantive improvements in the
\ncharacter of the nation; a government that is cleaner and more
\ncompetent than the present one; and a more mature democracy in
\nwhich violence is avoided and cultural pluralism is respected.
\nThese are tall political orders. How can we get there? In how
\nmany years or decades? And in what way?<\/p>\n
If this reading is correct, we can then ask ourselves what
\nkind of educational strategy should be devised for, let us say,
\nthe next twenty years to bring each of the coming generations
\ncloser and closer towards these three grand objectives. This is,
\nin my view, a national assignment that requires much penetrative
\nand realistic thinking.<\/p>\n
First, we have to spell out, what the expression \"a nation
\nwith a character\" (bangsa yang berwatak) really means, and what
\n\"character education\" really is. In my view, a nation can only be
\nreferred to as \"a nation with a character\", if it fulfills two
\nrequirements, i.e. it respects and upholds all laws and other
\npublic norms commonly agreed upon, and it has the ability to
\nbuild and shape its own future.<\/p>\n
On the basis of this understanding, \"character education\" can
\nthen be defined as the act of guiding the young generation
\ntowards \"voluntary personal commitment to values\", to borrow
\nProf. Phenix's words from Columbia University, and toward the
\ncapability to generate collective resolutions regarding the
\nfuture of the nation.<\/p>\n
The question is now how to proceed from what and how we have
\nbeen doing it thus far to what and how we should be doing it in
\nthe future. We have to admit that the way we tried to shape the
\ncharacter of the young generation is in most cases inadequate and
\ninsufficient. When it comes to teaching norms, most teachers in
\nnormal Indonesian schools -- perhaps not in national plus schools
\n-- still employ rote memorization and indoctrination as a means
\nto teach. Many teachers think that knowing the norms and
\nregulations is the important objective, and that understanding
\ntheir meaning for the diverse real life situations will come
\nautomatically.<\/p>\n
If we want to improve our method of guiding the young toward
\nlife characterized by integrity -- because this is what in the
\nend \"to have character\" really means -- we have to change the
\nobjectives of character education, meaning not merely to know the
\nnorms or values of the society, but to extend it to include the
\nunderstanding of these norms and values as well, and eventually
\nthe ability to implement them voluntarily and to make them
\nguideposts for daily life.<\/p>\n
Our second shortcoming in character education as we have
\ncarried it out thus far, has been that we never pay enough
\nattention to the question of how to engage students in efforts to
\nbecome a better self, and how to train them to plan and shape
\ntheir own future. In the classical pedagogical jargon this is
\ncalled \"neglect of building conative capability\" (from Latin
\nconatio, and conari, meaning effort and to try).<\/p>\n
We have always believed that building cognitive capability was
\na very important objective; but we give only scant attention to
\nthe building of affective capability; and we always overlook
\nbuilding students' conative capability. And since this inadequate
\nand insufficient character education has been going on for
\ngenerations, is it really surprising that we, as a nation, have
\nbecome confused with our own character?<\/p>\n
And what kind of education should we provide to the young
\ngenerations to help them become capable of forming a \"clean and
\ncompetent\" government when they become the backbone of the
\nnation? And what about educating the young generations to build
\n-- in their own time -- a \"more mature democracy in which
\nviolence is avoided, and plurality is better appreciated\"?<\/p>\n
I do not think I can discuss these huge problems adequately
\nwithin the span of 1,000 words. I just want to emphasize that in
\neducation there are no drastic changes that can be achieved
\ninstantly. Education toward fundamental changes -- political or
\notherwise -- is always a long and arduous process.<\/p>\n
Thus to my political friends I just want to say that we in
\neducation are neither insensitive nor retarded. We are just
\ntrying to be mindful of not repeating a past mistake, i.e. to
\nbecome an ardent political slave, and unknowingly cause the
\nnation to become trapped in unstoppable corruption, incompetence,
\nand shameless public deceptions.<\/p>\n
The writer is a House member who represents the Indonesian
\nDemocratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/translating-political-agenda-into-educational-reform-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}