Transformation of Indonesian education: 1945-1995 (2)

Transformation of Indonesian education: 1945-1995 (2)

By Mochtar Buchori

This is the second of two articles examining the
transformation of Indonesia's education system from 1945 to 1995.

JAKARTA (JP): Against the powerful intrusion of politics into
the educational system during the Guided Democracy period from
1959 to 1965, the educational bureaucracy was not able to offer
any significant resistance. In my opinion this was the time when
the educational bureaucracy changed its character from a
professional to a political identity.

After the Indonesian Army under the leadership of President
Soeharto succeeded in crushing the communist-inspired coup, the
restoration of economic and political lives began to take place.

The educational system, which during the turbulent period of
October 1965 to March 1966 was a very important component in the
mass movement against the communists, began to return to its
normal life and function. The period between 1970-74 was marked
by a return to sincere educational reform.

The curricula, heavily infiltrated by left-wing ideological
views, were reexamined and revised, with development-related
issues taken seriously into account. Upgrading courses were
conducted to re-train teachers in their understanding the
principles underlying the new curricula, and also in the
techniques of implementation.

In short, they were trained in the technicalities of "modern
education". It was also during this period the pesantren made
their presence felt in their quiet bid to modernize. This in turn
made it possible for some progressive pesantren to make their
views on modern education, based on Islamic orientation, known to
a wider audience.

Lively discussions were conducted regarding the relationship
between empirical knowledge and revealed knowledge (wahyu).

Linked to this issue was the problem of establishing a
functional link between general education and religious
education. At the university level, serious efforts were made to
enhance the academic quality of both state and private
institutions.

Various types of standardization were introduced, ranging from
standardization of campuses to standardization of study programs.
In the meantime, the growth of private institutions of higher
education went on at a frantic speed. It was just impossible for
the government to control these private institutions.

Hence the major discrepancy between respectable private
universities and obscure private universities. Among the state
universities, there was a marked gap between the big universities
located in Java and those located outside Java. This is a problem
which still persists today.

Concern with the qualitative aspects and other technical
issues of education made the educational system overlook one
important problem: maintaining the relevance of educational
programs. After 1976, it became clear to economists that
Indonesia could no longer rely on revenues from oil and natural
gas.

The country had to change the structure of its economy. Drives
to develop domestic industries were launched, and by 1981 revenue
from the industrial sector began to soar. By 1983 it was evident
that the economy was undergoing a transformation from an
agricultural to an industrial economy.

This important change in economic life was not properly
understood by educational authorities. The consequence was that
symptoms of educational mismatch began to appear. Unemployment
among certain types of college graduates became common. Newly
created job opportunities could not be filled by Indonesian
graduates, whose training did not match new requirements.

The public began to cry out for education appropriate for
existing jobs. This in turn created an academic controversy
between proponents of "ready-for-use education" on the one hand,
and proponents of "basic education which makes retraining
possible" on the other.

This situation prompted the present Minister of Education and
Culture to launch his new policy of link-and-match. In the
meantime, certain classes within the society have become
impatient with the continuous decline of the quality of
educational system.

This led to the rise of new types of schools, labeled as
"elite schools", "quality schools", "luxurious schools", etc. A
very lively debate now asks whether these schools will lead us
toward an educational practice of higher quality or a more
discriminatory system of education.

A more significant meaning is that society has realized the
need for new types of education to give students the ability to
respond to challenges of the future -- namely, the need for real
proficiency in Indonesian and English, science and technology
literacy and basic computer skills.

People have begun to realize that this kind of education
cannot possibly be offered by today's schools. New types of
schools and teachers are needed. This issue brings into the
foreground the problem concerning the adequacy of the present
system of teacher education.

Another burning issue at the moment is the attitude adopted by
the educational bureaucracy towards private schools, especially
private universities, who feel that the educational bureaucracy
treats them unfairly.

Ideally, the educational bureaucracy would adopt the same
attitude towards both types of educational institutions. Both
state and private educational systems are national systems that
merits equal government treatment.

Looking back once again, one cannot escape the impression that
educational transformation has been a long journey. Looking back
at what we had in 1945, we should feel proud of the achievements
of the founders who laid down a solid foundation for our
educational system.

Looking into the future, however, we are right to be worried
about the present condition of our system of education. Can our
present educators repeat the feats of the past generation? Can we
take our educational system away from its present state of
confusion and bring it to a higher understanding of the demands
of a globalized future?

This is a question that concerns each one of us, and not only
those who are actively engaged in the management of our
educational system.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.