Quest for education with international standards

Quest for education with international standards

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): During a number of seminars on education I
attended recently, one question kept cropping up: Can we achieve
education with international standards through our present
national curricular?

Whether the discussion was about preschool, primary and
secondary levels or higher education, this particular question
continued to emerge.

At first I had no clear idea of what was meant by "education
with international standards". It is only after a number of
discussions that I began to understand the meaning of this
phrase.

Generally speaking, this expression has been used to refer to
school education that is capable of leading our students towards
excellence in academic performance. I got the impression that the
yardstick used in these discussions was the educational
performance of schools in countries like Australia, New Zealand,
Singapore, Japan, the U.S., the UK and Western European
countries.

Malaysia and the Philippines were only occasionally mentioned,
while Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea never came up as points
of reference. This shows how little we know about educational
developments in these countries.

The general view in these seminars was that our present
national curricular constitutes an obstacle rather than an
effective means of achieving academic excellence. This feeling
was especially strong among seminar participants from higher
education.

This is understandable in view of the fact that it is our
institutions of higher education that feel the pressure of
foreign competition most strongly. They are the ones witnessing
the uphill struggle waged by their graduates facing competition
from Indonesians who graduate from universities abroad.

What is it that makes schools in industrially developed
countries look so attractive academically? I am not sure what
those seminar participants meant by "academic excellence" but if
we invert the question and ask: "What is it that makes our
schools so unattractive academically?", then the picture becomes
much clearer.

Usually people point out the failure of most schools to guide
our students toward competence in languages (both Indonesian and
English), sufficiency in science and computer literacy, mastery
of history and social studies, conversance in regional and global
current affairs, competence in one of the branches of fine arts
(music, literature, painting) and an ability to present
themselves in a polite and convincing manner.

To support their arguments they usually point out the poor
performances of our high school graduates in these fields. Look
at their language, they do not even know the difference between
social and formal Indonesian. Don't talk about their competence
in English!

It is unbelievable, they cannot even read Reader's Digest.
What about their competence in math, physics, and chemistry? And
what about their computer literacy? Their knowledge about
national and world history? And the list of complaints go on and
on.

I think it is an acceptable argument and it would not be too
difficult to gather evidence in support of these claims. But is
it true that the difference between our education system and
others is due only to weaknesses in our curricular? At this point
the allegation becomes less tenable and we must look at other
factors for the underlying causes of the weakness.

It is indeed true that the national curricular for the various
levels of our education are generally "overloaded", giving our
students not enough spare time to engage themselves in other
exercises of equal or even greater educative significance.

One music teacher complained in one of these seminars that he
does not know how to cultivate the musical potentials among his
talented students with only one hour a week allotted to music and
no time for extracurricular exercises in this field.

Many language teachers maintain that without time for
practicing speech and writing essays, no language teacher can
guide his or her students toward an acceptable level of language
competence.

It should not be forgotten, however, that the excellence of a
student's academic performance depends also upon the student's
efforts, teacher's competence and the adequacy of academic
infrastructure provided by the school.

No matter how well curriculum is designed, if students do not
exert themselves to the limits of their ability, if teachers fail
to provide adequate learning guidance and support and if schools
do not provide teachers and students with the instructional aids
needed to carry out an educational program, then it is quite
unrealistic to expect academic achievements of a reasonable
quality from the students.

How can our students acquire appreciable competence in
languages if neither the teacher nor the school shows them what
an appropriate language usage looks like or sounds like? How can
students accomplish mastery in music if no musical instrument is
available at a school and if the teachers themselves cannot play
any musical instruments? How can our students be proficient in
physics and chemistry if there are no decent labs at schools?

Blaming our curricular alone is not the right way to diagnose
the weaknesses of our present educational system. I am afraid
that if we solely focus our attention on curricular, and do not
give sufficient attention to the other three factors (students,
teachers, and academic infrastructure), the time will never come
when our schools produce graduates who satisfy our expectations
and of whom we can feel proud. I am afraid that after we exhaust
ourselves in debates about our curricular and after new
curricular has been announced and implemented, we will still
encounter disappointing performance among our students.

What then are the essential weaknesses with regard to our
students, our teachers, and our schools' academic infrastructure?

I think that the major weakness of our students lies in their
poor ethos for learning and in their very limited repertoire of
studying techniques.

With regard to our teachers the main source of their weakness
is their low salary.

And in relation to the academic infrastructure of our schools,
our main weakness is in the limited funds available for
purchasing the educational equipment needed and in the lack of
freedom on the part of the school to decide for itself what
should and will be purchased.

These problems should be addressed simultaneously with the
problem of improving the curricular. Attacking the complex
problem of enhancing the quality of our educational performance,
factor by factor, does not look too promising. In my view this
issue of achieving "education with international standards" is
not a problem of curriculum, it is a bigger problem. It is a
systemic problem within our schools.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.