RI education system needs a revolution

RI education system needs a revolution

By Nirwan Idrus

This is the first of two articles on Indonesian education.

JAKARTA (JP): Minister of Education and Culture Juwono
Sudarsono recently outlined his eight or so basic competencies he
would like to see adopted during his term of office. There is no
prize for guessing that "the three Rs" (reading, writing and
arithmetic) are included on the minister's list. It is refreshing
to listen to the incumbent of a very important portfolio
responsible for the country's human resources development talking
about getting back to basics. The minister was speaking at an
Indonesian independence celebration at the Australian
International School on Aug. 19, 1998.

Getting back to basics has been proven to be a potent antidote
to deteriorating organizational health. There is no reason why
this cannot be the case with education either. Not very long ago,
many companies around the world talked about keeping to their
networking, reconcentrating, refocusing, reduced diversification
and even reengineering. But how will these impact on Indonesian
education now and in the future? What is the health of the
Indonesian education system?

The education portfolio in a country of more than 200 million
people where a big percentage are of primary and secondary school
age, is an extremely formidable responsibility. This portfolio
designs the templates of future Indonesians and molds their moral
and intellectual characteristics and capacities. It therefore
needs the most appropriate and well thought-out vision, mission
and strategy. It needs to envision the type of Indonesians that
Indonesia needs in five, 10, 15, 20 and even 100 years from now.
To be realistic, we also have to think about the type of
Indonesians we need right now and in the next two or three years.

This complex situation is somewhat exacerbated by the constant
social and technological changes occurring everywhere, the
effects of globalization, increasingly open competition, tariff
and protection reduction and, of course, the monetary crisis. But
a man's work is never done, as they say.

Do we need education reform in addition to the other three
reforms we have heard so much about since May 21 this year?

It has been argued that education reform in Indonesia started
some years ago and not in 1998. The nine-year compulsory
education perhaps could be seen as a major part of that reform.

But the government's insistence on Bahasa Indonesia as the
medium of instruction in higher education and the abolition of
the term MBA and its global replacement with MM (Magister
Manajemen) could also be seen as part of that reform as well.

This is so despite the fact that at about the same time,
Malaysia said that its insistence on the Malaysian language as
their educational medium of instruction had disadvantaged
Malaysians and Malaysian businesses.

In fact, many Indonesians have been saying exactly the same
thing as a result of their own shortcomings in negotiations with
international businesses.

Indeed, recognized recent higher education reforms started in
the early 1970s in the United Kingdom followed by other English
speaking countries around the globe since then.

For example Australia introduced its Unified Higher Education
system in 1987, and New Zealand amended its Education Act in 1990
when it introduced its seamless education model. One of the major
impacts of these changes in those countries was improving
quality, efficiency, effectiveness and access.

The other was the formation of new universities from the then
polytechnics, colleges of advanced education and institutes of
technology. For a while, Australians talked about the pre-1987
and post-1987 universities, although that distinction is slowly
disappearing, especially now that the newer universities are
beginning to show significantly higher creativity and
effectiveness in their teaching, learning and research.

The introduction of the concept of quality management into
higher education was a significant shift in paradigms in the
education sector anywhere. It is encouraging that after a number
of years of incessant prodding by quality practitioners and
governments alike, the concepts of quality assurance, total
quality management, continuous quality improvement and similar
measures to recognize the importance of the consumers, are
beginning to find acceptance in the hallowed corridors of
universities and other higher education institutions around the
world.

It is also pleasing to see that Indonesia has quickly picked
up this important paradigm shift and is pursuing educational
policies to encourage and instill quality in its higher education
institutions. At least three of the Ministry of Education and
Culture's current major projects involve the implementation of
quality assurance and continuous improvement in higher education
institutions around the country.

The Development in Undergraduate Education Project recognizes
the shortfalls in various educational infrastructure at
Indonesian universities. Its main objective is therefore to
improve such infrastructure in order to upgrade the standard and
quality of basic facilities that contribute to producing quality
graduates.

The Quality for Undergraduate Education (QUE) Project on the
other hand has the objectives of improving relevance, academic
atmosphere, internal management and organization, including
institutional commitment, sustainability as well as efficiency
and productivity of S1 teaching and learning (S1 or Strata 1 is
the undergraduate level in Indonesia). Grants were awarded to S1
study programs at universities around the country on the basis of
successful pre-applications and final applications during 1997
and early 1998. These grants, subject to annual reviews, run for
a maximum length of five years and are funded through World Bank
loans.

The third, namely the Engineering Education Development
Project (EEDP) concentrates on engineering education. Its
objectives are to improve the quality and relevance of
engineering education and to enhance students' access and
participation in the study of engineering.

Quality and quality assurance sit on the top of a list of foci
which include curriculum development, industry linkages,
equipment and reequipment as well as student loans.

Unlike the QUE Project, EEDP includes both technical and
professional engineering education levels, i.e. diplomas and S1,
at both polytechnics and universities. EEDP involves seven
polytechnics and six universities in various parts of Indonesia.
This project is funded through loans from the Asian Development
Bank.

Dr. Nirwan Idrus, a consultant in higher education, is a
chartered professional engineer and has held senior positions in
industry, government and higher education in Australia, Papua New
Guinea and New Zealand. Ideas expressed in this article are
personal.