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.