Turning IKIPs to universities (2)

Turning IKIPs to universities (2)

This is the second of two articles exploring the increasingly
frequent mutation of teacher training institutes into
universities.

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Now that most teacher training institutes (IKIP)
seem determined to convert themselves into universities, two
questions need to be considered.

One, what must these institutes do to become good
universities? Two, which institute will perform the teacher
training function in the future?

As a former teacher of an IKIP, it is very painful for me to
say that in the opinion of the public these institutes are
inferior institutes of higher learning.

This being the case, the question that the public has been
asking is whether the institutes are really capable of converting
themselves into respectable universities. Some say that it would
be better for the institutes to concentrate on quality
improvement rather than converting into universities with
questionable quality.

According to the rector of the Catholic Sanata Dharma
University in Yogyakarta, Rev. Dr. Sastrapratedja, S.J., a
massive input of additional personnel was needed to convert his
IKIP into a university.

New personnel had to be recruited from the various branches of
basic sciences and other academic areas. Without fresh input of
academicians trained in basic natural and social sciences, he
said, it was impossible to convert the various departments and
schools within his old IKIP into respectable university
departments.

At present, there are five schools in every full-grown IKIP: a
school of education (fakultas ilmu pendidikan, literally meaning
a school of the science of education, a term which sounds absurd
to me), a school of education in languages and arts, a school of
education in social sciences, a school of education in vocations
and technology, and a school of education in sports and physical
health.

Let us, for a moment, put aside the discussion about the
school of education, and concentrate on the other four schools.
The question that must be resolved in this regard is how to
transform them into schools that fit the current design of
Indonesian universities.

Let us note that at present, most universities in Indonesia
have two types of schools, that is, schools for academic studies
and schools for professional studies. Within the academic branch
there are schools of letters, mathematics and natural sciences,
and social and political sciences. On the professional side there
are schools of medicine, economics, engineering, agriculture with
its various ramifications like forestry, fishery and others, and,
in some instances, a school of maritime studies.

It can be imagined, just on the basis of surface comparison,
the magnitude of preparatory steps that must be completed to
convert any of those IKIP schools into one of those university
schools.

The simplest of all seems to be the conversion of the school
of education in languages and arts into the school of letters,
although it still requires much preparatory work.

How should the relationship between the teaching of languages
and the teaching of letters be? This is a very basic problem that
must be solved. I have the impression, for instance, that
students in many schools of letters start talking big about
literary works before they even master the basics of a language.

On the other hand, IKIP students in foreign languages are
usually better in their command of language, but they never learn
anything significant about literary works in those foreign
languages. This particular conversion cannot possibly be carried
out without first solving the above mentioned question.

The conversion of other schools within an IKIP into any
university school poses still bigger problems. The most difficult
of all is the conversion of the school of education.

This particular school is, at the moment, limiting itself to
the study of school management, especially the problem of
managing teaching-learning interactions. After much trimming and
pruning by the Ministry of Education and Culture, this school now
has three departments: the department of educational guidance and
counseling, the department of special education, and the
department of educational technology.

While there is nothing wrong with this type of specialized
study, I do not think that neglecting the study of macro problems
in education is desirable in developing a respectable school of
education in a university setting.

The question then is how to transform or convert the school of
education in its present form into a school of education capable
of studying systematically significant macro and micro problems
within our present educational system.

What kind of personnel have to be infused to generate this new
academic capability? I do not know how to answer these questions.
The point I wish to make here is that these technical questions
must be answered satisfactorily if those various IKIPs are to
succeed in their attempts to convert themselves into respectable
universities.

The question about which institute is to take over the
function of teacher training in the future is based on the
assumption that the present IKIP model will be abandoned.

I do not think that all IKIPs will be interested or have the
capacity to convert themselves into universities. Nevertheless,
after all the criticisms that have been leveled against IKIPs, I
do not think it is wise to leave the remaining IKIPs stuck in the
present model, the "dual-track model" or the "concurrent model".

A new model, a more realistic one, must be developed. There is
a new angle to this question. Up to now, IKIPs are designed only
to educate secondary school teachers. The education of elementary
school teachers and kindergarten and playgroup teachers has long
been neglected.

At the moment, there is only a program, not an institute, for
training elementary school teachers. The assumption that has
remained unsaid about this situation is that it is much easier to
be kindergarten and elementary school teachers than it is to be
secondary school teachers.

This is a position that cannot be defended. If we want to have
a really good educational system, all the way from kindergarten
to senior high school, then the problem of training teachers for
the various levels within the system must be taken equally
seriously.

The ages from three to 10 constitute the most decisive period
in the development of children. Can the education of teachers for
kindergarten, elementary school and secondary school be done in
one institute? I am convinced that it can.

The writer is a former rector of IKIP Muhammadiyah, Jakarta.