Transformation in education
Transformation in education
By Mochtar Buchori
JAKARTA (JP): It has been said that education is a culture-
bound phenomenon. This expression is usually interpreted to mean
that the practice of education varies from one culture to
another. The way the Javanese educate their children, for
instance, differs from the way the Chinese educate theirs.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this expression.
One, to be an effective practitioner of education in a society
one has to study not only the methods and techniques of education
practiced in that society, but also the cultural bases of those
educational practices.
Two, whenever a society is undergoing cultural transformation,
then it is imperative for that society to reexamine and revise
its education practices. It would be absolutely necessary for
that society to carry out educational reform. If reform is not
carried out thoroughly, then the educational system would be
unable to function satisfactorily within the new environment.
Indonesia has had waves of cultural transformation since the
advent of World War II. The Indonesian government and the
education community in Indonesia have carried out a series of
adjustments and innovations to make the educational system
respond satisfactorily to the new challenges in society.
Yet in spite of all the efforts a number of problems remain
unsolved. The final result is that our educational system does
not run as effectively and efficiently today as it did in the
1950s, for instance. We can thus say that besides progress and
development, there has also been drawbacks and decline in our
educational system. Why?
This is a major question, to which no one has a satisfactory
answer, I am afraid. In my view, part of the reason for this
situation is that we have been operating too much "on the
surface" in our efforts to bring about improvements in our
educational system.
We have not given enough thought to the changes that have
taken place in "the deeper levels" of our cultural life. In
redressing our educational problems we have paid too much
attention to the administrative aspects of our system, and not
enough attention to the cultural sources of the problems that our
schools face.
Let us take as an example the problem of unruly students, and
the brawling between them. In our repeated efforts to mend this
problem, we have been concerned primarily with the question of
restoring order as soon as possible. Most of us still think this
problem is confined primarily to schools and students in Jakarta,
or at the most to two or three other big cities.
We have always been quick to point out that student brawls
never occur in rural areas, and never at religious schools. On
the basis of such observations we conclude that the remedy should
consist of three steps: one, administer punitive but corrective
measures to the students involved; two, return to our own
cultural lifestyle, and resist with all means and might the
global pull of the "modern lifestyle"; and three, give our
students more religious instruction. This is a clear example of
our reductive thinking.
In facing this problem we seldom ask what the ultimate causes
are. We know that there must be some causes, but we consider it
too complex to discover what they are. And in our vocabulary
today, whenever we use the word "complex" to describe a problem
it means that it is too difficult to analyze and solve.
We also never ask whether there is any relation between
student brawls and the loosening of morals which is happening in
our society. We never ask whether the violence and crimes
committed by young people are in any way related to student
brawls. We just do not go deep enough into our thinking about
these problems. We feel content to think and act on a "surface
level".
Why do we behave like this?
I think because, basically, we are accustomed to perceiving
education and schools as a phenomenon that stands on its own,
unrelated to any other social institution within society, and
also unrelated to society itself.
We don't even seriously accept the fact that school education
is influenced, both positively and negatively, by the education
students receive in their homes. This is, in my view, the first
reason why we think about Indonesia's educational problems in a
reductive way.
The second cause is that in administering school education we
routinely narrow our activities down to one main activity:
implanting knowledge in our students.
We limit our educational tasks at school to develop the
cognitive potential of our students. Most of us never pay the
slightest attention to the development of the cognitive power,
the power to mobilize will, of our students. Even religious
education is in most cases reduced to implanting knowledge about
religion, not inculcating a religious way of life. Religious
education (pendidikan agama) is reduced to instruction about
religion (pengajaran agama).
Because of this tradition to think about education in a
reductive way we do not possess the intellectual capacity to
analyze our educational problems within their cultural context.
We do not have the capacity to see and understand our educational
problems as part of our cultural problems. And in my opinion,
this is the very result of our traditional way of educating our
teachers, educational administrators and educationists.
What do we have to do to correct this situation?
We have to change the way we perceive education, and we have
to learn to apply it. We have to learn, for instance, to perceive
education in its broadest sense of the word, as indicated by the
way we use the word pendidikan (education) in our culture.
We have to learn to perceive our schools as part of a network
of social institutions, and not merely as an administrative
entity which can be separated from the rest of society at will.
And finally, we have to think very seriously about a new method
of educating teachers.
I admit that this is a very huge agenda. Yet unless we
seriously begin to tackle this big problem, we will be forever
trapped in this situation of unfinished educational reform.
The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.