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.  ●

What is wrong with our education? Henry Wijaya  ;   The writer holds a master’s degree in international educational development from the Teachers College, Columbia University

JAKARTA POST, 20 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                      

As an Indonesian citizen who recently completed studies in a graduate school of education, I frequently ask myself, what is the problem with Indonesia’s education? The question is based on the following assumptions. First, that Indonesia’s education has a problem and second, that something has to be done to fix that problem. I find it problematic to come up with a clear-cut list of multilayered problems in Indonesia’s education. It’s even more problematic when those who ask these questions decide the answers, which include low teacher quality (the easiest to blame), a poorly crafted curriculum (the easiest to criticize), a lack of equal infrastructure (we all know how enormous Indonesia is, thank you) and the unsatisfactory performance of the Education and Culture Ministry. Further, many of those who ask the questions even presuppose solutions like: “Let’s drill the teachers even harder,” “Let’s blame the curriculum even more and propose a new curriculum,” “Why don’t we bully the ministry even more?” or everyone’s favorite, “Let’s internationalize our education,” whatever that even means. Yet, our problem lies even deeper than these suggestions. To define what is wrong with our national education is to define first what we need education for. Only after that will we know what it means for us and we can prescribe further actions to take. Human capital theorists say education is meant to prepare students to be economically independent and participate in their society’s economic development. The students are capital and education is a means to add more value to that capital. The final products are individuals ready for the workforce. The expected impact of such products is that they become capable of economically fulfilling their needs and supporting their country. In short, education is an economic investment. Then there are the idealists, or the romanticists, for whom education is about giving students all the opportunities they need to discover their true passions and to empower them to achieve those passions. This theory presupposes that every individual has a sacred dream to achieve. Education, hence, is the tool that facilitates self-discovery. The final products are the persistent dream-pursuers. The expected results are achieving the dream and gaining genuine happiness. As Paulo Coelho said, “the whole universe will conspire to help those dreamers seek their dreams.” The rise of radical religious groups suggest that education is a process of transferring moral or religious values from superior beings who supposedly know better to those who know less. The students are blank vessels — inexperienced beings. The superior beings pour content into the minds of these vessels and, voila, we have people with good moral and religious devotion. These enlightened people are expected to contribute to the rise of a holy country where heaven reigns on Earth. Next we have the definition of the human rights activists: education is to train the students to be aware of each other’s rights and to be able to take action to defend such rights. From passive, silent or oppressed students, education transforms them and empowers them to be active. In the final form are students who are aware, ready and brave enough to guard each other’s rights. The expected result is a community in which members coexist peacefully in tolerance. The list of educational definitions could go on. But at the very core, education is simply to enable students to grow with critical thinking. In our context, it is crucial that education provides children with the tools to develop critical minds. So, what does it mean? Students with critical thinking are aware of both their choices and their consequences. Some might prioritize financial crises in their family and thus seek practical training to be able to work. Some might not have troubles financially or do not think about it so much and prioritize their passions. They are critically aware of their actions and try to be prepared for the difficulties ahead. These students dare to dream high, but also to rationally evaluate their dreams. Students with critical thinking do not take for granted what people preach to them. They might study the theology of a religion and eventually devote themselves fully, but never because someone else indoctrinates them. They do not easily buy the narrow interpretations of religion that condemn other followers, that discriminate the other gender or that promote violence. Such students are aware of their own rights and responsibilities. They understand that other people also have such rights and do not shout for respect while stepping on others. They are aware of the world they live in with its political, economic and social issues. They let this awareness become a basis for their action too, as they desire to transform themselves as well as the world they live in for the better. A generation of young and active individuals with critical minds to better address the diverse issues in our country is what Indonesia truly needs. Here the students themselves will decide what education is for them personally, releasing them from any boxes. The students become free individuals who are critical of themselves as well as of others. The expected impacts are unlimited, but for the better. Education is never about teachers trying to shape these students based on our teachers’ standards and preferences. True education trusts the students to decide by themselves. We, as teachers, are just there to assist them whenever they need support. Furthermore, teachers are there to create a safe learning space full of opportunities, experiences and challenges. This is what education is for and what education should be for. The answer to the question of what is wrong with our education is simple: it is wrong when it does not let the students grow with critical thinking. ●