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.