Education reform: Mind over matter

By Simon Marcus Gower

JAKARTA (JP): Reform has become an extremely popular word in Indonesia, but have its implication and accompanying objectives been fully articulated, understood and explored?

Is the concept of reform being swept away in a whirlwind of popular hopes and aspirations, while true reform becomes a distant prospect?

Clearly, any process of reform takes time, but it is fundamentally important that reform be clearly placed within a framework for change for the better. Reform that instills change to improve the future rather than simply rejecting and being reactionary to the past.

To reform is to improve by alteration, to correct errors through the removal of defects and to abolish abuse or malpractice.

If the calls for reform are merely echoes of cries of rejection of the past and not established upon solid grounds for a better future, then the reform process will be ill-founded and liable to flounder in a quagmire of repeated mistakes.

For Indonesia, what must surely be pursued is at least some manifestation of democracy and facilitating people with the potential for betterment. Both of these conditions may be closely allied to the achievement of a better system of education.

However, democracy ought to be concerned with the empowerment of people and a central means of empowering people is ensuring that they are educated.

In turn, they may then empower themselves and others -- the concept and the ideal can grow to spread the benefits of education. Thus a key component in the creation of a reform process ought to be reform of education for all Indonesians.

Many have called for the reform of the education system in Indonesia; but what are the objectives of such reform and how might such an objective be realized? Education is unquestionably vital to a nation's life; but in Indonesia's case it would appear that the New Order's era devised and maintained a highly structured and controlled system of education that has rendered the current need for reform.

As Nurcholish Madjid, rector of Paramadina Mulya University, described it in an interview (The Jakarta Post Nov. 18, 1998), the government's regimental approach of forcing all schools to accomplish the government designed curricula... has led to the adoption of a one-track, monolinear way of thinking. Thus the existing mode of education may be seen as a system of control rather than one that empowers and liberates students to think for themselves in an original and progressive way.

A notable development in the education planning for this nation has been the desire to increasingly incorporate the use of the English language across the whole of the curricula; i.e. the English language will not only be taught as a subject in and of its own right, but will also be used to teach other subjects.

Such a development is, perhaps, a reflection of the desire to reform and improve the education system, but is such a goal realistic and realizable within the actually of the Indonesian education system?

The teaching of English alone in Indonesian schools is evidently in need of considerable reform. As Chaedar Alwasilah showed in his two articles (The Jakarta Post Dec. 8 and Dec. 9 1998 respectively), the teaching of the English language in Indonesia has also been subjected to a regimented education approach.

This has left the teaching of English in a state that has questionable relevance and value to the world in which Indonesia and Indonesia's students alike must exist and attempt to prosper.

Observations from personal experiences as a teacher in Indonesia have shown me the consistency with which the existing English Language education system is indeed at the very least in need of reassessment in order to make syllabus objectives realizable given the realities of the resources available -- in particular teaching staff.

Consistently, learners of the English language have been encountered that have been put through the regimented approach to education that prevails. This, in the case of English language learning, means that their knowledge has been developed in a highly formal and grammar-oriented manner. So much so that they have developed a quite thorough knowledge of the language but have failed to become competent users of the language.

What effectively has happened is that they have, to a limited degree, become linguists in their quite theoretical study of the language rather than being guided toward becoming practical users of the language.

As a consequence, one may experience the seeming anomaly of encountering a learner of the language who possesses considerable knowledge of the way the language is constructed, (that is its structure/grammar), but is unable to communicate accurately and in a reasonable, comprehensive manner due to a failure to educate to bring that learner to a point where use of the language is as developed as theoretical knowledge.

Recently I had occasion to speak at some length to two learners -- one who has attended an English course and would no doubt score well in a grammar test, the other has not attended an English course but in his day-to-day activities has to communicate consistently in English.

The former of these two lacked the creativity and sense of freedom to use the language he knew in an inventive and fluent manner, the latter, while probably possessing less knowledge of the grammar, enjoyed the sense of freedom and creativity to use the language and communicate with greater clarity and interest.

Why should this situation prevail? Both of these people possessed sufficient ability in the language to make their meaning understood, but the latter's communicative ability outstripped that of the former's. It seems that the speaker with the greater communicative ability had been freed from the burden of the closed and controlled thinking that is endemic in the Indonesian education system.

How can such problems be addressed? How can an anomaly such as that noted above be redressed?

Creativity, independence and flexibility in education may go a long way in helping to redress these kinds of problems. A culture of inclusion that encourages the students to be active participants in their own education rather than merely passively being spoon-fed and led in a controlled and mechanical way may be beneficial.

Respect for an appreciation of the individual are critical concepts in developing an education system that enjoys a sufficient degree of sophistication to be helping to bring students to a point where they are both well educated and well rounded people that may interact and succeed within their local communities.

Greater independence and flexibility for both schools and teachers will allow them to better meet the specific needs of their students.

Can education reform really happen in Indonesia? Undoubtedly the challenges are great, but equally undoubtedly the will to reform, to change for the better, does exist.

Years of regimented education will have had a deep and lasting effect and, as a consequence, true reform will take time to emerge. The need for change may be considerable and, given the increasingly information-based and globalized nature of our world, change may be required quickly and efficiently.

However, time need not necessarily be seen as an enemy here. All nations, no matter how democratic and developed they may seem, have evolving systems of education.

A key element of a sophisticated system of education is its ability to accommodate change and improve as a consequence. Thus the desire for reform should be welcomed and viewed positively as an aspect of growth for a developing nation.

But patience and a carefully considered reform process for education in particular ought to be applied. The value of education is inestimable. Aristotle, when asked what the difference between an educated man and an uneducated man was, answered: "The same difference as between being alive and being dead."

Indeed, perhaps one of the greatest of human rights is that of the right to an education; perhaps in our modern age more than any time before.

The desire for education reform in Indonesia is commendable and right. Through appropriate application of this will for change, reform can and almost inevitably will occur, but realistic objectives need to be set.

Genuine reform takes time, and worthy and workable change for the better needs to be given time to evolve. Flexibility and inclusion ought to be valued in this reform era, rather than the rigidity and control of the New Order era.

The writer is a director of Academic English at International University Transfer Programs in Jakarta