In search of quality education

In search of quality education

Mateus Yumarnamto
Surabaya

In the discussion on the future of the national examination
which was held by Forum Wartawan Peduli Pendidikan (Journalists'
Forum for Education) and Balitbang Departemen Pendidikan Nasional
(the R & D Unit of the National Education Department) on Tuesday,
Feb. 8, 2005 in Jakarta, Ki Supriyoko said there was an urgent
need for an independent institution to be responsible for the
national examination.

Referring to a similar body in the Philippines, he asserted
that the institution should be responsible for measuring and
evaluate the competence of junior and senior high school
graduates and at the same time assess the national standard of
education. His acknowledged that the national examination was
still needed, but it should be held more professionally by an
independent institution that included professional teachers and
educators.

This statement is linked to the condition of our education
system, which has lagged behind many Asian countries. We are
badly in need of higher quality education. Imagine, the passing
grade for the national exams last year was only 4,05 (this year
it will be 4,25) and many students failed the exams.

It means a student could pass the examination with a pass
grade of less than 50 percent and many still had trouble passing
it. In this case, there may be two possibilities, either the
standard for the exams was too high, or the schools simply failed
to achieve the minimum national standard. In this case, the later
is more probable.

However, we are not alone in lamenting over the bad condition
of education. Even in the U.S., the National Governors
Association has lamented the paltry skills of many high school
graduates. Many high schools graduates lack the basic skills
required by colleges and employers. So, despite criticism from
educators and teachers, the governors are calling for more
rigorous standards and harder exams than states have already
imposed, often with considerable difficulty (The New York Times,
Feb. 23, 2005). Not only the governors are insisting on higher
standards, many others have demanded an overhaul of the education
system as a whole.

What about ours? Our education system does need improvement.
However, it cannot only hinge on the national examination. Like
in U.S. where exit tests have been criticized -- many struggling
students will be more likely to drop out and teachers will simply
teach for the test at hand, hampering the development of broader
skills, our national examination might have the same effect.
Therefore, improving the quality of education by focusing on the
national examination is like putting the cart before the horse.

The premise of developing the national education system has
been wrong from the very beginning. It is based on the principle
of uniformity and assumes that all students are the same: they
have the same talents and abilities and the same opportunities
and access to education.

In reality, students have diverse talents, interests and level
of intelligence. We have a normal curve in which most students
fall into the average domain and the rest occupy both poles. In
terms of opportunity and access to higher education, the poor,
who are increasing in number, have less opportunity to gain
access to higher education.

Therefore, promoting high schools instead of vocational
schools both at the senior and junior high levels is against the
reality. Equipping high school students with vocational-skills
and at the same time with academic skills -- as suggested by
Curriculum 2004, will not be effective.

Moreover, not all students want to continue their education.
Of all high school graduates, less than 30 percent go to higher
education institutions. The others will jump into the job market,
which does not welcome them as they lack competence in the world
of information technology.

Promoting vocational schools that offer various vocational
skills is more urgent and more relevant to our situation than
lulling low academic achievers into dreaming of higher education.
We should just allow them to develop their talents. Those who
have academic potential should be helped to go to universities
and especially to teacher training colleges while the others can
develop their talents and pursue their interests in vocational
schools, that should be opened in all districts based on global
standards and local knowledge.

In this way, we can kill two birds with one stone; develop
skilled workers for the job market and improve the quality of
teachers for the future. This is one step toward developing a
quality national education system.

Encouraging reform in education through promoting vocational
schools will be useless if our society still overrates academic
degrees. We have to educate the society, especially parents. Many
of them put too much hope and unrealistic burdens on their
children.

Instead of enrolling their children who have not done well
academically in vocational schools, parents tend to force them on
to higher education. Unfortunately, many higher education
institutions grab this chance by offering them special seats at a
premium price.

Who will take the responsibility for educating society? The
answer is all of us, including the government, the mass media and
educational institutions. We cannot institutionalize priyayi's
view that overrates degrees and titles. Instead, we have to
respect professionalism regardless of the educational background
of the person.

The writer is a lecturer at the teacher training school at
Widya Mandala Catholic University in Surabaya. He can be reached
at mateus@mail.wima ac.id