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.