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.