New curriculum : Give teachers their core business back

New curriculum : Give teachers their core business back Ahmad Faizuddin  ;   The writer is studying for his PhD at the School of Education, Educational Management and Leadership at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM); He graduated from Ar-Raniry State Islamic University (UIN) in Banda Aceh and from Ohio University in Athens, US

JAKARTA POST,  13 Desember 2014

                                                                                                                       

It has been 10 years since I last met one of my elementary school teachers. “Teaching has always been my passion,” he said, “but I feel like I’m doing more clerical work than teaching.” Basically, he felt completely perplexed with today’s school system. Today, teachers spend endless hours doing things other than teaching. Teachers burdened by non-teaching duties want to do less paperwork. One of the teachers said, “I prefer the earlier curriculum, the KTSP [the 2006 school-level autonomy curriculum], in which we identify students’ needs prior to designing a syllabus.” The 2006 curriculum requires a substantial workload, but teachers say they can be more creative in prescribing and teaching the subjects required. So it was good news for teachers when Culture and Elementary and Secondary Education Minister Anies Baswedan decided to review and drop the 2013 curriculum (K-13). While most schools are required to return to the 2006 curriculum, the 6,221 schools that have started K-13 are to continue the previous curriculum with new guidelines. Perhaps we should take more time to prepare, evaluate and do trial runs before implementing a new curriculum. Singapore and the UK spent at least three years before applying a new curriculum. Even UN bodies with a focus on education, like UNICEF and UNESCO, normally spend five years of continual assessments before running a program. In response to the minister’s announcement, skeptics say as in the past, “new minister, new curriculum!” But there is no one-size-fits-all solution for education. Previous curricula were not entirely wrong. However, the curriculum should indeed change based on future needs though changes should not be so rapid and politicized. A curriculum needs continued improvement, not continuous change. K-13 is more like a one-size-fits-all package with its syllabus. What is suitable for one school might not be the same for another. Charles Handy, an Irish author, said, “Instead of a national curriculum for education, what is really needed is an individual curriculum for every child.” It does not make sense to ask teachers to fill in so many forms, especially when they have up to 40 students in one class. Teachers matter more than the curriculum. The fact that teachers are not well informed about or trained in the curriculum proves we are still far from the best educational practices. We really need continued professional development to empower teachers to reach their best performances, and thus to meet students’ needs. But not every teacher is committed to teaching. According to a recent World Bank report, teacher certifications have certainly improved their living standards, but not teaching performance. Even though 1 million teachers have been certified, a lot of the time their performance remains poor, which means the students are not motivated. Perhaps we should go back to the roots of education for improvements — to teacher training institutions, recruitment processes and professional training programs to review and evaluate the problem. It’s very unfortunate that we have teachers who think that teaching is simply an administrative duty — just giving students knowledge to study, fill in the forms or complete the logbooks, and go back to teaching the next day. True teaching should aim for the success of teachers and students in the long term. In Finland, with one of the best educational models, students have been at the top of the worldwide Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) for many years. They have less homework and spend less time in the classroom. They even have fewer subjects compared with other developed countries, like the US or the UK, which still emphasize standardized tests. Finland’s standardized mandatory tests are held once, at the age of 16. Thus, since students do not compete for the best graduation certificates or best school admissions, they have more fun learning in a comprehensive education system. To merely copy and paste the Finnish system or any other foreign model of schooling is not recommended. Education should cater to students’ religious and cultural needs. What we need is not a brand new curriculum based on other models, but the assurance that teachers know exactly what they are doing so students learn in a comprehensive and positive learning environment. The three programs; the 2004 competency-based curriculum (KBK), the 2006 school-level autonomy curriculum (KTSP) and the K-13 certainly have their pluses and minuses. Thousands of teachers across the country have been sent to their respective training programs. A new curriculum is not necessarily the sole requirement of educational reform. Teachers can develop their own Finnish model. What should we do then to help teachers focus on teaching? Many young officials sit in the education departments and offices. Why not employ them as professional clerks and do the paperwork? Yes, sometimes they must supervise teachers by visiting schools. But most of the time they wait for teachers’ forms and reports. Let teachers focus on teaching and motivating students to perform to their best. It does not make sense to ask teachers to fill in so many forms, especially when they have up to 40 students in one class. Imagine how much time they need if they have two or three classes? Professional clerks should be a source of manpower for teachers in schools. Only then can we expect quality learning for students. Rather than a curriculum change, we should change the paradigm of a government-initiated or top-down curriculum to a school-based curriculum through teachers’ continued professional development. While the curriculum disappoints many parties, it is still teachers who must continue to educate students. Equip teachers with proper training, update their skills and knowledge, and give them back their own business: teaching. ●