Good schools more than good students and good teachers

Good schools more than good students and good teachers

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Noel McGinn, a Harvard professor of education, once said to me: "At Harvard we don't have good teachers. We have only good students".

Is this true? it depends upon the way you look at it. If you look at this sentence in an ordinary way then you would say this statement is not true. It's a statement made out of a sense of modesty.

But you can also look at it in a different way. You can interpret it to mean that in Professor McGinn's view, professors are also students at Harvard.

This is a truism because at any good university, professors keep studying, keep building their knowledge and their wisdom. Seen in this way, this statement of Prof. McGinn is a true one.

I did not ask Prof. McGinn what he meant by his statement. But his statement reminded me of an old pedagogical principle I learned a long time ago, that ultimately it is the student who determines the result of any educational effort.

According to this view, the student is the central factor in the educational equation. And contrary to popular belief, the teacher is not a person who molds the student. The teacher is merely a person who facilitates the process of unfolding the potential that exists within the student.

An article in a Dutch magazine called Het Kind (The Child) published in 1900 described education as "the act of parents taking courses in which, in an unconscious manner, the child is the professor".

According to this view, it is entirely up to the student or pupil whether he or she will achieve 100 percent actualization of his or her potential, or whether he or she will actualize only 80 percent of his or her potential.

Good students, ambitious students, will strive for a full actualization of his or her potential, without being constantly and systematically prodded by the teachers. But less ambitious students, that is students who prefer to have an easy and relaxed life rather than a life filled with hard work leading towards a satisfying goal, will never exert himself or herself towards a full realization of his or her potential without being constantly goaded and prodded by the teachers.

In real life, it is the combination of good students and good teachers that makes optimum educational attainment possible. Good teachers make less ambitious students become ambitious. Good teachers have the ability to evoke among the students the will to become high achievers.

And this conversion from being unambitious to being ambitious, from not wanting anything special to wanting to be high achievers, is done without imposing on the students anything that cannot be called their own.

This conversion is done entirely by stimulating vague volitions within the students to become strong motivations. In short, this conversion is done by stimulating "the potential" to become "the actual". What if good students do not meet good teachers? They will still be good students. They will still do their best. Really good students will do their utmost even in the absence of strong stimulation and challenges. For good students the challenges do not come from outside, but from within themselves.

There is, generally speaking, a big difference, however, between the achievement of good students studying under the tutelage of good teachers and equally good students studying without the tutelage of good teachers.

Good students who study without the benefit of good teachers usually take too many circuitous routes to reach a certain educational goal. Unknowingly, they waste too much time and too much energy in the process. This is because the teachers who guide them in the learning process do not know any better.

Here lies, I think, the difference between qualified and unqualified teachers. Qualified teachers know the geography and "architechtonics" of their special field of study, in addition to knowing each of his or her students as a person. Unqualified teachers, on the other hand, do not have such expertise.

Qualified teachers ask the question: "What don't I need to teach, because it is not really necessary?", whereas unqualified teachers ask the question: "What shall I teach?" In the eyes of unqualified teachers everything is equally necessary.

Good students shall, of course, not stop at their handicapped level of educational attainment. They will keep pushing until they reach a level of achievement they consider satisfactory. But this does not eradicate the handicaps they suffer from having to study without good tutelage. No matter how hard these students work, there is nothing they can do which can compensate for the lack of guidance by good teachers. But usually such students will one day meet good teachers, and it is only then that they will realize what they have missed thus far.

Doesn't the combination of good students and good teachers automatically make good schools? No, good schools are more than just a combination of good students and good teachers. Above these two good elements, another element is needed to make good schools, and that is good educational programs.

Basically, good educational programs take three things into account, the needs of the students, now and in the future, the needs of the society, now and in the future, with regard to manpower, and the culture of the country, both in its present and in its future conditions.

Good educational programs thus take into account the dynamics of the society and the culture.

It is to be remembered in this regard that learning is a culture-bound activity. What we consider worthy of learning and what we consider should not be learned depends upon the values which are alive in our culture. Even the way we learn is determined by our culture.

And since healthy culture is alive and dynamic, educational programs must be tested against and attuned to dominant features of this culture. In short, good educational programs must respond to the call of the times.

What if good students and good teachers do not meet good schools? They are still good students and good teachers. Their interaction can still bring about optimum educational attainment. But the relevance of this optimum attainment vis-a-vis the needs of the society and the nation, especially vis-a-vis the future needs of the society and the nation, is in doubt.

This is especially true, if we look at the most essential part of educational attainment, which is the development of the personality and the mentality of the students.

Thus, while it is good to have good students, it is better to have good students and good teachers, and it is best to have good students, good teachers, and good schools. This is the only valid answer to the call of the times.

The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.