Cultural transformation and educational reform

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): It has been said that education is a culture- bound phenomenon. This expression is usually interpreted to mean that the practice of education varies from one culture to another. The way the Javanese educate their children, for instance, differs from the way the Chinese educate theirs.

Two inferences can be drawn from this expression. The first is that to be an effective practitioner of education in a society, one has to study not only the methods and techniques of education practiced in that society, but also the cultural bases of those educational practices. The second is that whenever a society is undergoing a cultural change or transformation, there is the imperative for that society to re-examine and revise its practices of education. There is the imperative for that society to carry out educational reform. If this reform is not thoroughly instituted, then the educational system will not be able to function satisfactorily within the new environment.

Indonesia has been undergoing cultural transformation, waves of cultural transformation in fact, since the advent of World War II. The Indonesian government and the education community in Indonesia have carried out a series of adjustments and innovations to help the educational system respond satisfactorily to the new challenges in society. Yet, in spite of all the efforts that have been made there are still a number of problems that remain unsolved. The final result is that our educational system does not run as effectively and as efficiently today as it did in the 1950's, for instance. Thus, we can say that besides progress and development, we also see drawbacks and declines in our educational system.

What is the reason for all this?

This is a very big question, to which no one can provide a complete and satisfactory answer. In my view, part of the reason for this situation is that we have been operating too much "on the surface level" in our efforts to bring about improvements in our educational system. We have not given enough thought to the changes that have taken place at "the deepest levels" of our cultural life. In redressing our educational problems, we have given too much attention to the administrative aspects of our system, but not enough attention to the cultural sources of the problems that our schools have been facing.

Let us take as an example the problem of unruly behavior among students, including the problem of brawling among them. In our repeated efforts to mend this problem, we have been concerned primarily with the question of restoring order as soon as possible. And most of us still think that this problem is confined primarily to schools and students in Jakarta, or at the most to two or three other big cities. We have always been quick to point out that this phenomenon of student brawls never occurs in rural areas, and also is never found among schools with religious backgrounds. On the basis of such observations we conclude that the remedy should consist of three steps: (1) administer punitive but corrective measures to those students involved in brawling; (2) return to our own cultural life style, and resist this global pull of "modern life style" with all might and means, and (3) give our students more religious instruction. This is a clear example of our reductive thinking.

In facing this problem we seldom ask what the ultimate causes of this situation are. We know that there must be some causes, but we think that to find out what they are is a very complex problem in itself. And in the Indonesian language of today whenever we use the word meaning "complex" to describe a problem, it really means that we are unable to analyze and resolve it. We also never ask whether there is any relation between this problem of student brawling and the loosening of moral norms that is happening in our society. We never ask whether cases of violence and crimes committed by young people are in any way related to cases of student brawling. We just do not go deep enough in our thinking about these problems. We feel content to think and act at the "surface level."

Why do we behave like this?

I think because basically we are accustomed to perceiving and thinking of education and schools as a phenomenon that stands on its own, unrelated to any other social institution within the society, and also unrelated to the society itself. We do not even seriously accept the fact that the education we provide in our schools is influenced in a positive and negative way by the education our students receive at their respective homes. This is, in my view, the first cause of our habit of thinking about our educational problems in a reductive manner.

The second cause is that in administering school education we routinely narrow down our activity to one main activity: implanting knowledge into our students. We limit our educational task at school to develop the cognitive potential of our students. Most of us never pay the slightest attention to the development in our students of the power of conation; that being the ability to mobilize will or to act with purpose. Even education in religion is in most cases reduced to implanting knowledge about religion, not inculcating a religious way of life. Religious education (pendidikan agama) is reduced to instruction about religion (pengajaran agama).

Because of this tradition of thinking about education in a reductive way we do not possess the intellectual capacity to analyze our educational problems within their cultural contexts. We do not have the capacity to see and understand educational problems as part of cultural problems. And in my opinion this is all the result of our traditional way of educating our teachers and educational system administrators.

What do we have to do to correct this situation?

I think we just have to change our way of looking at and thinking about education. We have to develop a new way of perceiving and thinking about the instilling of knowledge, and we have to learn and apply it. We have to learn, for instance, to perceive education in the broadest sense of the word, as indicated by the way we use the word 'pendidikan' (education) in our culture. We have to learn to perceive our schools as a part of a network of social institutions, and not merely as an administrative entity which can be separated from the rest of the society at will. And finally, we have to think very seriously about a new design for our institutions for teachers' education.

I admit, that this is a very huge agenda. But unless we begin seriously to tackle this big problem now, we will be forever trapped in this situation of unfinished educational reform.

The writer is former deputy chairman of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences and now rector of the Muhammadiyah University.