Education empowers people to be responsible

The government will propose revisions to the draft bill on national education and one main item in the bill's deliberation will be the changes to the Constitution in regard to education. The following is an excerpt of an interview with Suyanto, rector of Yogyakarta State University, formerly the state-run Institute of Teachers' Training and Education (IKIP) with The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto.

Question: The amendment to the article on national education of the 1945 Constitution implies that all citizens are expected to have stronger faith (in God), piety and high morality. These terms which are now in the Constitution have no concrete benchmark. What do you think?

Answer: A constitution must be universal. If necessary, it should be more utopian than other regulations ... Now regulations, or instruments, must be made to define "faith, piety" and "high morality"; hence people will clearly know if corruption, for example, is a noble deed or not.

Officials have disclosed different definitions on national education. What is your definition?

Education is a means to empower people to be responsible for their actions ... who should eventually possess high moral character. This is what should guide the deliberations on the draft bill on education. We need a nation with people who are accountable for what they do. We need independent citizens with the courage to say no. With the right education concepts, we could build an independent nation with a high level of morality and a real sense of responsibility. Are you among those who agree that religion must be taught as a subject starting at the elementary level? Yes. The basics of morality must be taught to children as early as possible. Religion contains such basics .... both the family and the schools must be consistent in teaching religion.

Wouldn't it be better for elementary schools to teach subjects relating to good character (budi pekerti), while junior high school students might be taught to apply this in their religion? It's all the same. Teaching of character is almost the same as religion. If budi pekerti is only taught at the elementary level, do we have good teachers for that subject? Budi pekerti needs examples, while I don't think we have such model teachers. The problem is how to contextualize religion in real life. That needs a special method of pedagogy. Religion seems to be a very personal thing to be taught as it relates to the relationship of an individual with God. However, some teachers have been known to give good scores merely for Muslim students considered to have performed the correct movements in prayers. Your comment?

Scoring just aims to motivate students to learn. We have been living under a system which respects a quantitative system, and things must change now. The real key to make religion well accepted as a school subject is the teacher. The problem is then how to empower the teachers. In developed countries teachers are ranked based on merit. Here ... there is always a negative effect due to the absence of a value system to assess the teachers.

Many elementary students see the subject of religion as a burden. They must know by heart the Koranic verses in Arabic. Many take additional classes at a madrasah (Islamic elementary school) to get good grades for religion. What do you think?

At elementary school (up to third year) anything that is taught and provided must be based on a children-oriented approach.

The class should be developed in such a way that students feel happy, and are interested to participate. Teachers can introduce a concept but should not expect that the children really know it. Just let students know, for instance, the customary behavior of people smiling or shaking hands when meeting with each other. Later they will be able to develop the value of meeting with others. The subject must not become a burden.

Teachers must be empowered to develop their wisdom and philosophy in teaching. But how can we expect our teachers, who are always busy with their side jobs due to their low salaries, to be qualified at the schools?

How far does religion at school contribute to national character building, in comparison to public schools in the U.S. that do not teach religion?

Religion is "not important" in the U.S. and most people are not active in their religion. Private schools in the U.S. still offer religion as subject. The bottom line of teaching religion at school is to let people start to be aware of and to respect values of daily life; how to encourage people to participate in ensuring social order.

(A small example is that) On television we see legislators smoking in the air-conditioned meeting hall during sessions ... We have the state ideology of Pancasila, which should have been implemented through a gradual learning process. In a religious context, we are all the would be dwellers of others' hell based on the others' religion. We have been taught how to respect and be proud of our own religion, and to disrespect and belittle others' religions. This is very dangerous and against the philosophy of character building.

Religion at school must build better religious tolerance among the students. Thus religion is still relevant and important.

There will be chaos if schools do not give religion as a subject. Many people would openly resist this.

It's time for religious leaders to sit together to discuss the formulation of a concept of religious tolerance so as to promote empathy among religious followers.

With rampant juvenile delinquency among students, have the teachers failed to convey the message of religion and morality to students? Or is this a failure of our whole education system?

People have been too simplistic. The society, politicians, the media have all inspired the students to behave improperly. Religion could remedy such "ailing" if the paradigm of religious teaching at school is changed. The point is how to apply religious teaching to our daily lives.

That is a question of professionalism. Teachers need programs on how to teach and explain basic values by example. We expect too much from the teachers. We lack professional (religious) teachers.

We need teachers who can teach religion using appropriate methods. I was once told that a religious teacher punished some of his students, who raised their hands, confessing that they failed to conduct the subuh (dawn Muslim) prayer. They should have appreciated the students' honesty. Were those who did not raise their hands really honest? ...

It is obviously a question of professionalism and methodology.