Who should be educating a better generation?

Who should be educating a better generation?

By Arkiman Racheman

MEDAN (JP): In a recent meeting with state Islamic school
teachers in Yogyakarta, Minister of Religious Affairs A. Malik
Fadjar asserted that a tremendous crisis was hitting the
educational system in Indonesia (Kompas, Nov. 1, 1999).

He identified the primary cause as the shrinking number of
guru (Indonesian for "teacher"), as opposed to pengajar
(literally "anyone who teaches"), in our secondary schools.

According to Malik Fadjar, guru are special people who
supposedly set exemplary examples in conduct and morality for
their students. Their shortage and the lack of their good
examples for others to follow have seemingly led our nation into
crisis.

If this educational anomaly is not seriously addressed, the
minister continued, it would be difficult to materialize "a well-
mannered and religious society" in the future. And it is well
understood that to make it possible for the desired civil society
to occur, the supply of a new Indonesian breed is beyond any
doubt.

Semantically speaking, the word guru is not the same as just a
pengajar. The latter has a much narrower or more specific nuance
of meaning. People "teaching" anything at all, even though they
may not be up to the required minimum level of qualification
needed for that purpose, can be simply referred to as pengajar.

Ironically, they can at times be found "teaching their
students a lesson" in the sense that they still physically punish
them as a necessary part of the commonly practiced disciplinary
system in most Indonesian schools.

Implications of the word guru are entirely different from any
of the implied notions mentioned above. They are often culturally
construed (also by the minister himself) as specialists who will,
by their noble nature, impart every bit of their essential
knowledge, both profane and divine, including that of social
etiquette and morality, to their students.

It is not so surprising, therefore, that even in the modern
English dictionary the word "guru" is still maintained and used,
but in the original sense of "a spiritual teacher or leader",
hence, a person who provides spiritual guidance or direction to
followers.

It is possible this interesting semantic differentiation
between the two words may well have been responsible in the first
place for the way the words are now being differently treated in
our language. That is to say, pengajar being so readily accepted
as an antonym for guru. Would it be reasonable to say that this
reality may have also paved the way for coinage of the expression
"Hari Guru Nasional" and rejection of "Hari Pengajar Nasional",
both meaning National Teachers Day?

It can be said here that the word pengajar, when it is
juxtaposed with guru, almost always implies things in the
negative, while the word guru, on the contrary, has only positive
connotations. But there could be different implications suggested
by the words.

First of all, within the present climate of severely
commercialized education, pengajar are often imagined as sheer
"employees" who operate and keep the educational "company"
rolling, whereas guru are increasingly left behind in the view of
idealistic creatures incapable of surviving the hurly-burly of
modern materialism.

While pengajar are frequently busied by their own obsession
with the tantalizing material world, guru are more deeply engaged
in their focused devotion for the pupils in order that they grow
and mature emotionally, intellectually and spiritually.

Philosophically speaking, guru and pengajar in principle
differ from one another, especially when viewed from the kind of
substance they hand down to their students. Guru, most of the
time, impart the whole of their knowledge in its totality; while
pengajar, for one reason or another, may only offer a fragmented
body of knowledge.

Good guru have no justified fear of being potentially subdued
or troubled by their smart students, but pengajar, even the best,
would at times worry about having to deal with their brilliant
students, who are customarily the most "hassling" and, for that
matter, the most time-consuming as well.

Therefore, guru lead and act by example, while pengajar
transmit their synthesis of knowledge as something detached from
their real life altogether. In other words, the former must be
able to prove and apply their own teachings empirically even
outside the context of their own professional formalism. The
latter are conditioned merely as a cold extended hand for the
objective source of knowledge.

That is the reason why few people could become guru on the
basis of their formal teaching qualifications alone. And, within
this connection, it can be said as well that no single teachers'
training institute in the country would be capable of "producing"
such in-demand guru either. Therefore, ideal guru should already
have contained those lofty qualities in themselves far
beforehand, or they can never be ones at all.

Meanwhile, if need be, the number of pengajar can always be
multiplied quantitatively, even in a fortnight or so, by means of
a certain training package carried out in conduction with the
government's educational policy on procedural uniformity.

Therefore, unlike pengajar, guru must be "the chosen ones" and
not "those who choose" to be ones. Like a divinely appointed
prophet, guru must be selected from the entire human race in
order to carry out a special prophetic mission.

In implementing their missionary work, guru commit themselves
only to their deeply felt conscience and their own spiritual
consciousness, while pengajar would go only as far as fulfilling
the task of their profane commitment.

Consequently, guru feel a deeper and more direct
responsibility for their students' acquired competence as well as
their failure. Pengajar, on the other hand, are not always
willing to attach themselves to such a mode of self-sacrificial
commitment.

In the system of conduct, the former gratefully allow their
own profession to mold for themselves a particular binding
lifestyle, but the latter only view their profession as a part-
time social or, worse still, commercial self-involvement.

To put it in different words, guru will always act as ones
even when they are not carrying out their professional function;
while pengajar are easily and, at times, consciously swept along
into the current of their social life.

It is not hard to imagine, therefore, that the guru of that
sort will always be the minority in the countries like Indonesia
where sole economic concerns predominate, but pengajar constitute
the domineering majority in an increasingly consumerism culture.
The reason for that is manifold.

First, it is easier to make the latter available in large
numbers. They are everywhere and, for that matter, are easier to
locate, but guru are increasingly difficult to find nowadays in
this ever-despiritualizing society of ours due to their natural
scarcity.

Second, it is presumably cheaper for the government to produce
the pengajar rather than guru in "industrialized" educational
projects which often emphasize radically intensive indoctrination
syllabi. In practice, these professionals of relatively minimal
quality standards are siap ditempatkan (ready for allocation) in
industrial posts rather than highly qualified gurus who are siap
pakai (ready for use) in all fields of employment.

Finally, it would not seem a serious problem to sacrifice the
pengajar's scanty idealism than guru's deep-rooted personal
integrity. So much so that the pengajar would not consciously
reject being used by their money-gapping institution as a cheap
source of labor. The guru is considerably harder to persuade,
because for them, as always, "it is far better to starve than to
prostitute" their sense of honor.

To return to the religious affairs minister's concern, we ask:
Has the shortage of guru in our secondary schools really caused
such a tremendous crisis? Such irreparable damage?

If that is the case, then there is no doubt that our nation is
now on the verge of total moral collapse. Why? Because the older
generation of people (read: the leftovers of the previous regime)
who have, unfortunately, fallen into disgrace due to their past
moral decadence cannot be expected to play a positive role any
longer.

Habibie's transitional government, in the mean time, is far
too busy feeding the hungry nation to have time to recognize any
long-term ideals. Meanwhile, a totally corrective new generation
of breed only exists in everyone's imagination, as it has not
actually shown any sign of imminence in actuality.

However, if the present condition is still within reach, would
it not be right for the present powerholders and decisionmakers
of the country to first of all lament over the worsening crisis
in our education system, and soon afterward do something
substantial about it before it is too late?

At any rate, to establish a truly civilized New Indonesian
society, the urgency of which is voiced through thousands of
Reformasi microphones, without concrete support in the form of an
emerging new generation of Indonesians who are "well-behaved and
religious" would be a mission impossible. And to hope for a whole
new bunch of civilized Indonesians to appear "out of the blue",
but without the ceaseless labor of genuine guru, would be an
absurdity.

The writer is a New Zealand university graduate and English
lecturer. He is based in Medan.