A competency-based curriculum: Its pitfalls and relevance

A competency-based curriculum: Its pitfalls and relevance

Alpha Amirrachman
Jakarta

It has been a year since the introduction of the new
competence-based curriculum, but a pile of basic questions has
been left poorly answered: Why a competence-based curriculum? Is
it possible to pursue this while many teachers are still
perceived as "incompetent"? How to validly measure competence?

First, it is important to examine the impetus that forced the
government to introduce this curriculum. Some argue that the need
to have quality human resources to compete in a job market was
the main reason. But I agree more with Siti Wachidah (2004), an
expert from the Jakarta State University (UNJ), who argues that
the introduction of a competence-based curriculum was merely a
"logical" consequence of the wide-sweeping political movement of
decentralization, which also pushed for the implementation of
school-based management.

Indonesia is currently undergoing social transformation. Since
the school curriculum is interwoven with the entire cultural
fabric, the adequacy of the old curriculum for the new cultural
circumstances will be searchingly questioned and changes in the
curriculum projected. The problem is under such unstable
circumstances, fewer standards of conduct and elements of
knowledge are usually adopted.

Second, it is significant to note that the nature of the
competence-based curriculum is result oriented rather than
process oriented. This is evident as the new national curriculum
system introduces two innovations: First, focusing on
standardized competence and learning output; second,
decentralizing syllabus development and implementation.

This means teachers are pressed to strike a balance between
"standardization" in learning output and "autonomy" in its
implementation, the latter demanding creativity in exploring the
supporting teaching methods. To sum up: Specific standardized
achievement should be "uncompromisingly" achieved, but how to
pursue this is "left" to the teachers. But what sort of
standardized competence is required?

Some argue that this standardized competence needs a thorough
consensus among stakeholders. Nevertheless, experts say that a
competence-based system, which permits curricular diversity due
to the diversity of potential of each section of education, does
not necessarily need "uniformity" in curricula. But a broad
consensus on curriculum development including the reference
points (such as what it means by competence and the stages to
achieve it), as Harries, Guthrie and Hobart (2001) argue, is
still important mainly for practical consideration.

The obstacle, however, stems from the contradicting policies;
a trademark of our government. The competence-based curriculum
runs at odds with the national exams, which now fall under the
responsibility of the newly established National Education
Standardization Agency (BSNP) whose formation has been
controversial, making one doubt whether it can really represent
the concerned stakeholders. While the curriculum emphasizes
performance standards, the centralized national exams emphasize
merely standards reflecting academic content.

Thus, the recent confusion on the part of teachers is not
unexpected. Reforming the national exam by turning it into an
instrument to map out "national competence", not as a requirement
to complete one level of education, or abolishing it and letting
schools or districts conduct local exams as a measurement
mechanism might be worth considering.

Likewise, the curriculum marks the shift from mass-based
learning to individual-based learning, which is pedagogically
laudable. But the number of students in regular classes is around
40, sometimes more. How on earth can teachers give quality
attention to individuals in a class with such a high number of
pupils? Virtually impossible.

Worse still, the competence of teachers to even adopt the
spirit of this curriculum is sadly doubtful. Take public schools
as an example. Based on teacher education background, statistics
from the Ministry of National Education (2001) reveal that at the
elementary school level, out of 1,040,698 teachers, 556,009 are
incompetent; at the junior high school level, out of 292,835,
106,783 are incompetent, at the senior high school level, out of
109,374, 30,385 are incompetent; and at the vocational high
school level, notably, out of 43,614, 30,085 are incompetent!

Other countries' experience shows that national awareness to
improve their workforce was the main pressure that pressed for
the implementation of a competence-based education. But Indonesia
is unique, the spirit of decentralization was instead the main
factor; hence, there is a legitimate concern that its relevance
to what is actually needed in the job market might have also been
overlooked.

We still expect that vocational education will be "whipped" to
perform better than general education in terms of technical
competence and for the general education not to entirely abandon
its effort to sharpen students' cognitive capability. Indeed,
inserting a substantial, but appropriate degree of "competence"
in general education can hopefully augment student "life skills"
and in due course help address unemployment.

And because we are left with almost no choice but to adopt
this curriculum, we have every right to demand that the
government listen to the stakeholders and pursue the policy in a
consistent and concerted manner. Teacher professional
development; reference points of a targeted level of competence
relevant to the job market; delivery of teaching materials and
resources of approaches to teaching; and measurement of
competence are among the issues that need to be addressed.

Support from the grassroots level, however, is equally
important. While a local initiative to activate inter-school
Teacher Study Program Discussion Forum (MGMP) to share all
related teaching issues -- such as teaching methods and classroom
organization -- is commendable, more needs to be done. Continual
assistance both from local governments and industry can be useful
to empower teacher professionalism and help build a more concrete
bridge between education and the job market.

As with any other policy, there are always snares, short
routes, shallow implementation, and overemphasis on one aspect at
the cost of others. Let's hope this will not end up merely as
another band-aid solution to the acutely ingrained problems of
our education system.

The writer is an observer of education and social issues with
the Jakarta-based Public Sphere Institute. He can be contacted
at a.amirrachman@edfac.usyd.edu.au.