Turning IKIPs to universities

Turning IKIPs to universities

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): The past year has seen a number of teacher
training institutes being converted into universities.

Among the first were the IKIP Sanata Dharma, a Catholic
Institute for Teachers Training in Yogyakarta which has now
become Universitas Katolik Sanata Dharma, the IKIP Muhammadiyah
Purwokerto, now Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto and the IKIP
Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, now Universitas Ahmad Dahlan,
Yogyakarta.

Soon to follow are the IKIP Negeri Malang, IKIP Negeri
Yogyakarta, IKIP Negeri Bandung, IKIP Negeri Jakarta, and IKIP
Negeri Padang.

What is the driving power behind this "educational mutation",
and what are the consequences of it? And is there any risks
involved in this "mutation"?

Three main reasons have been mentioned thus far. First, going
to an IKIP has become increasingly less attractive for high
school (SMA) graduates. The number of SMA graduates who register
themselves at IKIPs throughout the country has been steadily
declining during the last five years.

It has been reasoned that if IKIPs transform themselves into
regular universities they will attract more SMA graduates.

The second reason is that the number of teachers in the
country has reached a point where additional new teachers will
become redundant. To prevent mass unemployment among prospective
IKIP graduates in the future it is thought that the wisest thing
to do is to stop new enrollments. This has been the reasoning of
the Ministry of Education and Culture. The reaction among IKIPs
is that they cannot just sit passively, waiting to be liquidated.

Something had to be done. Hence the idea of converting IKIPs
into fully-fledged universities. As far as I know, it did not
come from the Ministry of Education and Culture, but from the
IKIPs themselves.

The third reason is closely related to the second, namely that
IKIP graduates are either reluctant to enter the teaching
profession or have not sufficiently mastered the technicalities
of teaching.

It has been rumored in connection with this that good IKIP
graduates have no problems in finding jobs outside the teaching
profession. It is the inferior graduates who cannot find gainful
employment, either within or without the teaching profession.

They are considered unfit for teaching and not sufficiently
equipped for any occupation outside the teaching profession. They
are the "neither-fish-nor-meat" type.

How true are these opinions? And what factors have caused this
present situation?

The opinion about an oversupply of teachers is hard to verify.
More detailed information is needed before a clear answer can be
given. What we need is information about the distribution of
teachers by subject and by geographical area.

Suggestions have been made, for instance, that teachers in
natural sciences and mathematics are very hard to find outside
Java.

Another opinion is that there is an oversupply of incompetent
teachers, but there is a significant shortage of good teachers,
in all subjects, in all parts of the country.

Those who say that IKIPs have become less attractive among
highschool (SMA) graduates are quite right. It is easy to gather
information to confirm this opinion.

The reason, many believe, is that the teaching profession in
Indonesia does not promise anything nowadays. You cannot live
comfortably on a teacher's salary. Besides, teaching rarely
provides any real intellectual enjoyment and satisfaction. It
also does not entail social status.

The effect of this situation is that only those SMA graduates
who are not accepted at other institutions of higher learning
turn to IKIPs. So for the last five years IKIPs throughout the
country have been forced to accept mostly second and third rate
minds as their new students.

The opinion that a substantial number of IKIP graduates have
been reluctant to become teachers, and prefer to seek other
occupations is also accurate. How large a portion this is of the
total IKIP graduates is hard to say. But this has been the case
since the early sixties.

I know of many former IKIP students who are employed outside
the Ministry of Education and Culture. Most of them are the good
graduates: smart, pragmatic, well-connected people. And they are
well aware of the shortcomings within the teaching profession.

Finally is there much truth in the opinion that says there are
IKIP graduates who do want to become teachers but cannot get
themselves employed?

Changes have been constantly introduced into the system of
educating secondary school teachers. The ratio between time
allocation for studying subject matters and for studying teaching
methods has been a constant point of dispute between the
education department and the subject departments within the
institute.

This ratio has been changing all the time, and the end result
of this continuous readjustment is that by the time of their
graduation IKIP students do not have sufficient mastery of their
chosen subject matter.

This is the result of confusion among members of the teaching
staff within IKIP concerning the definition of "teaching
competence".

At issue is whether teachers' education is to be conducted
according to a "sequential system", competence for subject
matters first, and then teaching competence, or a "dual track
system", with subjects and teaching methods to be studied
concurrently.

When IKIPs were founded as the Higher Institution for Teachers
Training (PTPG) in 1954, the system adopted was essentially the
sequential method. This was in accordance with the tradition that
had existed in the country since the colonial period.

When the PTPG was officially changed into IKIP in 1963, this
system was gradually changed. This was, in my opinion, the time
when the trouble started.

Confusion concerning the meaning of "teaching competence" and
the meaning of "the study of education" constitute the sources of
this present disarray. It is this that needs tackling before the
disarray can be eliminated and the profession become attractive
once again.