Translating political agenda into educational reform

Translating political agenda into educational reform

Mochtar Buchori, Jakarta

A number of friends complained to me about the slow reaction
of the education community to address public demands for
improvements in our political life. The public, at present,
demands a life without corruption, collusion and nepotism. It
also wants to see an end to the use of violence, especially in
matters related to our life as a multicultural society.

In addition, the people also demand that our politicians
behave in a more decent manner, and stop deceiving the public.
What is the response of educators to all these legitimate
demands? What kind of educational reforms are our educational
authorities planning to make so that these political dreams come
true?

"None," complained one of my friends. "You guys in education
are either insensitive toward public sentiment, or you are just a
bunch of politically retarded people." I was dumbfounded by this
angry remark

I must admit that these politically hyperactive friends have
their reasons to be frustrated, and that a large part of their
frustration is indeed valid. What they may not know, though, is
that political aspirations or dreams cannot be instantly
converted into the educational agenda. A sound educational agenda
can never be based on political wishes or political commands. No
matter how legitimate or how urgent these wishes may be, they
have to be converted first into a format that fits the demands of
educational planning.

The greatest difficulty in this regard is the difference in
the mode of expression between politics and education. In
politics, aspirations are expressed in terms of accomplishments.
But in education, programs are expressed in terms of potential
and processes.

Thus, when the public expresses its determination to put an
end to corruption, people in education ask what kind of
educational processes must be designed to make future generations
increasingly dislike and abhor corruption. When the public
declares a sincere wish to stop violence at home and in public
life, people in education have to think of a series of steps
that, within a given time interval, will prepare younger
generations to become increasingly more capable of solving
problems through peaceful means.

Examples concerning this conceptual gap between political and
educational thinking can be extended endlessly. Suffice it to say
that the necessary slow response of education to political
decisions is caused mainly by the fact that a number of rules
must be observed in translating the political agenda into
education.

One of these rules is that a political agenda must first be
translated in a holistic manner to become a good educational
program. What must be translated is thus a political agenda in
its entirety, not elements within it. In our present situation,
we have then to ask, "What does the public really want with its
various debates about political change?"

If my understanding is correct, what the public wants is
essentially to see a three-pronged change in our life as a
nation, i.e. substantial and substantive improvements in the
character of the nation; a government that is cleaner and more
competent than the present one; and a more mature democracy in
which violence is avoided and cultural pluralism is respected.
These are tall political orders. How can we get there? In how
many years or decades? And in what way?

If this reading is correct, we can then ask ourselves what
kind of educational strategy should be devised for, let us say,
the next twenty years to bring each of the coming generations
closer and closer towards these three grand objectives. This is,
in my view, a national assignment that requires much penetrative
and realistic thinking.

First, we have to spell out, what the expression "a nation
with a character" (bangsa yang berwatak) really means, and what
"character education" really is. In my view, a nation can only be
referred to as "a nation with a character", if it fulfills two
requirements, i.e. it respects and upholds all laws and other
public norms commonly agreed upon, and it has the ability to
build and shape its own future.

On the basis of this understanding, "character education" can
then be defined as the act of guiding the young generation
towards "voluntary personal commitment to values", to borrow
Prof. Phenix's words from Columbia University, and toward the
capability to generate collective resolutions regarding the
future of the nation.

The question is now how to proceed from what and how we have
been doing it thus far to what and how we should be doing it in
the future. We have to admit that the way we tried to shape the
character of the young generation is in most cases inadequate and
insufficient. When it comes to teaching norms, most teachers in
normal Indonesian schools -- perhaps not in national plus schools
-- still employ rote memorization and indoctrination as a means
to teach. Many teachers think that knowing the norms and
regulations is the important objective, and that understanding
their meaning for the diverse real life situations will come
automatically.

If we want to improve our method of guiding the young toward
life characterized by integrity -- because this is what in the
end "to have character" really means -- we have to change the
objectives of character education, meaning not merely to know the
norms or values of the society, but to extend it to include the
understanding of these norms and values as well, and eventually
the ability to implement them voluntarily and to make them
guideposts for daily life.

Our second shortcoming in character education as we have
carried it out thus far, has been that we never pay enough
attention to the question of how to engage students in efforts to
become a better self, and how to train them to plan and shape
their own future. In the classical pedagogical jargon this is
called "neglect of building conative capability" (from Latin
conatio, and conari, meaning effort and to try).

We have always believed that building cognitive capability was
a very important objective; but we give only scant attention to
the building of affective capability; and we always overlook
building students' conative capability. And since this inadequate
and insufficient character education has been going on for
generations, is it really surprising that we, as a nation, have
become confused with our own character?

And what kind of education should we provide to the young
generations to help them become capable of forming a "clean and
competent" government when they become the backbone of the
nation? And what about educating the young generations to build
-- in their own time -- a "more mature democracy in which
violence is avoided, and plurality is better appreciated"?

I do not think I can discuss these huge problems adequately
within the span of 1,000 words. I just want to emphasize that in
education there are no drastic changes that can be achieved
instantly. Education toward fundamental changes -- political or
otherwise -- is always a long and arduous process.

Thus to my political friends I just want to say that we in
education are neither insensitive nor retarded. We are just
trying to be mindful of not repeating a past mistake, i.e. to
become an ardent political slave, and unknowingly cause the
nation to become trapped in unstoppable corruption, incompetence,
and shameless public deceptions.

The writer is a House member who represents the Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).