Beyond Scores: The Real Crisis in Indonesia's Education System
The readiness of prevention and mitigation systems to face the dry season remains a question. A small incident illustrates the essence of education that is often forgotten in the frenzy of chasing grades and achievements. During the 2009 national exams, students at Sukma Bangsa School spontaneously refused when offered answer keys. From the outset, the students had been taught to firmly uphold and safeguard the values of honesty, independence, and responsibility. They were instilled with the importance of hard work and respecting the process over the outcome. On this basis, students were encouraged to reject any temptation that might lead them to dishonourable practices just to win or achieve good assessment results.
Character Education as a Foundation
The cultivation of honesty did not begin just before the exams. This value has been a primary focus since Sukma Bangsa School was founded 20 years ago, even becoming one of its core spiritual values. Graduation rates and high scores were never the goal, especially if obtained through dubious means. To build a healthy educational environment, the school, which initially accommodated children affected by the tsunami, conflict victims, orphans, and the poor, instilled its core values: no bullying, no cheating, no smoking, and no littering. These four pillars demonstrate that character education is a complete, indivisible whole.
The school’s firm and consistent stance on upholding honesty was not easy initially and even drew cynical responses from the community. Many felt uncomfortable with this uncompromising attitude, particularly during national exams. However, over time, many educators and government officials who were initially sceptical began sending their own children to Sukma Bangsa School. The school firmly believes that student success is highly dependent on a positive learning environment that enables balanced growth: character (noble morals), cognitive skills, and practical abilities. We hope for intelligent and skilled students, but more than that, we hope they possess empathy and social awareness. This is the essence of education that is often lost in the vortex of numerical scores.
What Sukma Bangsa School has built shows that character education can fortify students against cheating. However, such efforts will be futile if national policy remains trapped in conceptual errors. One fundamental error is equating national examinations with educational standards. This error arises because exam scores are the easiest to observe, leading society and the government to treat them as synonymous with standards. The government even believes that national exams can improve quality—a view that can be misleading if not scrutinised. Ease of measurement does not mean it represents the entire reality.
We often hear expressions that if national exams are abolished, we lose our standard reference, schools will operate without guidance, and performance cannot be monitored. This view reflects a limited understanding of the function of educational assessment. The government does need benchmarks for all education levels. However, universities, for example, have graduation standards without a national standardised exam. In addition to internal criteria referencing developed countries’ programmes, university performance is evaluated by the National Accreditation Board and ranking agencies using more comprehensive and balanced indicators.
As a partial mapping instrument, national exams can provide insight into teacher and school performance. Yet the government also has accreditation bodies and supervisors with adequate assessment instruments. It must be understood that almost 99.9% of the student assessment process takes place in the classroom, under the guidance of teachers and school leaders. This is where students learn, interact, and reflect. Standards are built progressively and dynamically. Teachers place trust in their students because trust is an educational value that must be continuously nurtured. Various assessment instruments are used, not just one. It is profoundly unfair and invalid to judge a student’s success using a single tool. As Howard Gardner stated, education encompasses many types of intelligence. The performance of students and schools must be assessed in a balanced and comprehensive manner.
The Way Forward
Ken Jones (2003) recommended four indicators for school performance. First, student learning should be the primary benchmark—the extent to which students genuinely progress in understanding, critical thinking, and the ability to apply knowledge, not just memorise. Second, learning opportunities must ensure every student, without exception, has fair access to quality education, not just a select few. Third, responsiveness measures a school’s sensitivity to the needs of students, parents, and the community—whether the school is open to feedback and adapts to remain relevant. Fourth, organisational capacity for improvement assesses the school’s internal ability to reflect, innovate, and grow continuously through teacher training, periodic evaluation, and visionary leadership. These four indicators must be used together; an assessment that relies solely on exam scores while ignoring these aspects is unbalanced and unjust.
If education policymakers work with greater focus, our situation could improve. We have a wealth of data—from national exams, PISA, and TIMSS—revealing that classroom learning practices still harbour many problems. These problems cannot be solved simply by changing the exam format. We can no longer assume that learning management will run smoothly, or wash our hands of the matter just because teachers are graduates of teacher training institutes. The facts show that a diploma alone is insufficient, especially when the quality of those institutes is often questioned. This is not to belittle teachers, but a call to improve the quality of teacher education, clinical supervision, and support systems.