Turning IKIPs to universities (2)<\/p>\n
This is the second of two articles exploring the increasingly
\nfrequent mutation of teacher training institutes into
\nuniversities.<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Now that most teacher training institutes (IKIP)
\nseem determined to convert themselves into universities, two
\nquestions need to be considered.<\/p>\n
One, what must these institutes do to become good
\nuniversities? Two, which institute will perform the teacher
\ntraining function in the future?<\/p>\n
As a former teacher of an IKIP, it is very painful for me to
\nsay that in the opinion of the public these institutes are
\ninferior institutes of higher learning.<\/p>\n
This being the case, the question that the public has been
\nasking is whether the institutes are really capable of converting
\nthemselves into respectable universities. Some say that it would
\nbe better for the institutes to concentrate on quality
\nimprovement rather than converting into universities with
\nquestionable quality.<\/p>\n
According to the rector of the Catholic Sanata Dharma
\nUniversity in Yogyakarta, Rev. Dr. Sastrapratedja, S.J., a
\nmassive input of additional personnel was needed to convert his
\nIKIP into a university.<\/p>\n
New personnel had to be recruited from the various branches of
\nbasic sciences and other academic areas. Without fresh input of
\nacademicians trained in basic natural and social sciences, he
\nsaid, it was impossible to convert the various departments and
\nschools within his old IKIP into respectable university
\ndepartments.<\/p>\n
At present, there are five schools in every full-grown IKIP: a
\nschool of education (fakultas ilmu pendidikan, literally meaning
\na school of the science of education, a term which sounds absurd
\nto me), a school of education in languages and arts, a school of
\neducation in social sciences, a school of education in vocations
\nand technology, and a school of education in sports and physical
\nhealth.<\/p>\n
Let us, for a moment, put aside the discussion about the
\nschool of education, and concentrate on the other four schools.
\nThe question that must be resolved in this regard is how to
\ntransform them into schools that fit the current design of
\nIndonesian universities.<\/p>\n
Let us note that at present, most universities in Indonesia
\nhave two types of schools, that is, schools for academic studies
\nand schools for professional studies. Within the academic branch
\nthere are schools of letters, mathematics and natural sciences,
\nand social and political sciences. On the professional side there
\nare schools of medicine, economics, engineering, agriculture with
\nits various ramifications like forestry, fishery and others, and,
\nin some instances, a school of maritime studies.<\/p>\n
It can be imagined, just on the basis of surface comparison,
\nthe magnitude of preparatory steps that must be completed to
\nconvert any of those IKIP schools into one of those university
\nschools.<\/p>\n
The simplest of all seems to be the conversion of the school
\nof education in languages and arts into the school of letters,
\nalthough it still requires much preparatory work.<\/p>\n
How should the relationship between the teaching of languages
\nand the teaching of letters be? This is a very basic problem that
\nmust be solved. I have the impression, for instance, that
\nstudents in many schools of letters start talking big about
\nliterary works before they even master the basics of a language.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, IKIP students in foreign languages are
\nusually better in their command of language, but they never learn
\nanything significant about literary works in those foreign
\nlanguages. This particular conversion cannot possibly be carried
\nout without first solving the above mentioned question.<\/p>\n
The conversion of other schools within an IKIP into any
\nuniversity school poses still bigger problems. The most difficult
\nof all is the conversion of the school of education.<\/p>\n
This particular school is, at the moment, limiting itself to
\nthe study of school management, especially the problem of
\nmanaging teaching-learning interactions. After much trimming and
\npruning by the Ministry of Education and Culture, this school now
\nhas three departments: the department of educational guidance and
\ncounseling, the department of special education, and the
\ndepartment of educational technology.<\/p>\n
While there is nothing wrong with this type of specialized
\nstudy, I do not think that neglecting the study of macro problems
\nin education is desirable in developing a respectable school of
\neducation in a university setting.<\/p>\n
The question then is how to transform or convert the school of
\neducation in its present form into a school of education capable
\nof studying systematically significant macro and micro problems
\nwithin our present educational system.<\/p>\n
What kind of personnel have to be infused to generate this new
\nacademic capability? I do not know how to answer these questions.
\nThe point I wish to make here is that these technical questions
\nmust be answered satisfactorily if those various IKIPs are to
\nsucceed in their attempts to convert themselves into respectable
\nuniversities.<\/p>\n
The question about which institute is to take over the
\nfunction of teacher training in the future is based on the
\nassumption that the present IKIP model will be abandoned.<\/p>\n
I do not think that all IKIPs will be interested or have the
\ncapacity to convert themselves into universities. Nevertheless,
\nafter all the criticisms that have been leveled against IKIPs, I
\ndo not think it is wise to leave the remaining IKIPs stuck in the
\npresent model, the \"dual-track model\" or the \"concurrent model\".<\/p>\n
A new model, a more realistic one, must be developed. There is
\na new angle to this question. Up to now, IKIPs are designed only
\nto educate secondary school teachers. The education of elementary
\nschool teachers and kindergarten and playgroup teachers has long
\nbeen neglected.<\/p>\n
At the moment, there is only a program, not an institute, for
\ntraining elementary school teachers. The assumption that has
\nremained unsaid about this situation is that it is much easier to
\nbe kindergarten and elementary school teachers than it is to be
\nsecondary school teachers.<\/p>\n
This is a position that cannot be defended. If we want to have
\na really good educational system, all the way from kindergarten
\nto senior high school, then the problem of training teachers for
\nthe various levels within the system must be taken equally
\nseriously.<\/p>\n
The ages from three to 10 constitute the most decisive period
\nin the development of children. Can the education of teachers for
\nkindergarten, elementary school and secondary school be done in
\none institute? I am convinced that it can.<\/p>\n
The writer is a former rector of IKIP Muhammadiyah, Jakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/turning-ikips-to-universities-2-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }