A new year, a new direction for our curriculum Henry Wijaya  ;   The writers holds a master’s degree in International Educational Development from the Teachers College, Columbia University

JAKARTA POST,  10 Januari 2015

                                                                                                                       

Many have commented on what seems to be an everlasting debate on the 2013 curriculum, starting with its controversial introduction, its premature preparation, its short-lived implementation and lately its suspension pending further evaluation. At this moment we certainly do not need people who publicly boost their own ego by their approval or disapproval of the curriculum, protect their own political interests through their approval or disapproval of the curriculum, or cluelessly express their unknowledgeable appraisal of the curriculum. When we decide if we should or should not implement a policy — in this case 2013 curriculum — it is wise to perform two levels of evaluation, a philosophical or ideological evaluation and a practical one. At the level of philosophy or ideology, we question if the concept of the policy is justifiable, whereas at the practical level we assess its feasibility. On the first level, those who are now evaluating the suspended curriculum could perhaps assess the essential concepts underlying the 2013 curriculum. Go back to the very first basic questions of what kind of students the curriculum is supposed to produce, and thus, what kind of education those students truly need. What do we want our students to become after studying that curriculum? Do we aspire to see students who are merely capable of performing successfully in various international standardized tests? Do we hope to have a next generation that is incredibly smart but weak in character? Do we aim to instill in our younger generation narrow-mindedness, fanaticism and intolerance? Or, do we wish to see a new generation of critical thinkers prepared to function properly in a democratic society and a globalized world? Once the curriculum designers have determined the goals of our national curriculum, they can then question what kind of teaching-learning process will lead us to those goals. To figure out the process they could then question three things: the assessment, the materials and the instruction. For example, there is no sense in trying to improve the character development of students if we are at a loss as to how to genuinely, validly and reliably measure that. It is also not possible for our children to become critical thinkers if classroom activity only comprises students reading unchallenging materials. To question the concept of the 2013 curriculum, we should search for integration of the goals, the assessment, the instructional strategies and the materials. While the curriculum designers question the ideological foundations of our national curriculum, they should also assess whether it is feasible to implement such a curriculum. The evaluation of course should include the pre-implementation, the implementation itself and the post-implementation of the curriculum. For example, for the pre-implementation, questions would include: What do we need to prepare to implement the new curriculum? Has the concept been established carefully and academically? Have the teachers been trained sufficiently to comprehend the core concept of the curriculum to turn it into practice and to evaluate it? Are the supporting materials ready? The answers will tell us when it is feasible to start implementing the curriculum. If we acknowledge that the curriculum is among the essential components of our national education, we surely do not want to recklessly implement it in a hurry. The duties of a curriculum developer, of course, do not stop when the curriculum is implemented. Unlike a machine, those who deal with education, including the staff, teachers and students will inevitably commit errors during the implementation. Therefore, the curriculum developer should continuously monitor its implementation while preparing its regular evaluation. Should something need to be improved, the designers can work on it again. Not to start from scratch and suggest another new curriculum, but to build an update on top of an already carefully planned curriculum. A curriculum would neither turn into a sacred document that cannot progress, nor a wasteful work that we can dispose of at any time. A curriculum can then become a transcendent work of an intellectual mind that evolves as our nation grows and as generations progress, always up to date to ever-changing eras and surpassing the boundaries of personal egos, fixed fanaticism and selfish political interests. As the new year of 2015 arrives, may a new direction for our national curriculum follow.  ●