The Ujian Nasional (UN – National Exam) was introduced following Act Number 20 of 2003 on National Education System (download). This was brought into law with two major objectives: to make schooling compulsory until the age of 15 (i.e. the end of junior high, SMP), and to allocate 20% of the nation’s annual budget to education.
Since then, with the philosophy of producing citizens who are compliant with the tenets of Pancasila which was used by the dictator Suharto to stifle dissent, ‘teaching to the test’ has been the norm.
The multi-choice format, for standardised ease of marking, only emphasises competitiveness. Private schools, dependent on fees paid by parents, are encouraged to initiate regular, often weekly, tests so that ‘progress’ could be monitored. The schools which accrued the most ‘passes’ and trophies for their cabinets would attract more applications, which in turn has encouraged these schools to sift out the less academically inclined students.
Public schools came under similar scrutiny from the Ministry and/or local education authorities and were judged to be a success or a failure based on the pass or fail rates. That the pass benchmark was raised or lowered by politicians had more to do with their egos than for any educational reason.
Teachers have been caught in the crossfire of politicians, the education bureaucratic hierarchy, and parents with expectations raised by the first two. Such has been the drive for ‘results’ within the school system that little effort has been made towards the serving the needs of students once they leave the system.
The much maligned UN has been dropped as of this school year (2014/15) for graduation purposes, yet will remain for “mapping” regional results. Schools are now been tasked with graduating students based on a continuous assessment process.
This is problematic in that schools have been using weekly and/or monthly multi-choice tests for assessment since current students first entered the school system. As reported in the Kompass newspaper on January 8th, “it is normal if schools still practice drilling because there is still no clear new evaluation method from the government.”
It can be argued that this methodology runs counter to sections of Act Number 20/2003 mentioned above. Chapter V, Learners, Article 12 (1 f.) states: Every learner in an educational unit is entitled to receive an education programme based on an individual's rate of learning.
Except for those few schools who had successfully introduced Curriculum 2013, the vast majority of schools have been instructed to revert to the 2006 curriculum, which has/had course material geared to rote learning.
Here it must be emphasised that teacher training in Indonesia is inadequate. There are more than three million teachers working in 208,000 schools “giving instruction” to some 50 million students. Yet it is estimated that as many as a million teachers are unqualified, lacking a bachelor’s degree and/or not having passed the certification test. The new Culture and Elementary and Secondary Education Minister Anies Baswedan recognises this and is setting up a directorate general dedicated to the teaching profession focussing on training and improving teachers welfare.
The new President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo has called for a change in the nation’s mindset. A start could be made by considering the core concept outlined Chapter IV, Part One, Rights and Obligations of Citizens, Article 5 (5) of the Act states: Every citizen shall have the right to enhance his/her educational ability in the process of life-long education.
Drilling to pass an inadequate ‘final’ school test in a rapidly changing world does not do that.
Teachers, students and their parents are naturally confused. Some clarity in this evolving situation could be achieved by an emphasis on Chapter VI, Streams, Levels and Types of Education, Part 6, Informal Education, Article 27 (1) which states: Informal education can be in the form of self-learning, provided by families and surroundings.
To “provide” self-learning is a non sequitur. However, if students are encouraged from an early age to explore and experiment, and if guidance rather than regulated systems and strictures is provided, and the “families and surroundings” were to provide the necessary ‘tools’ and opportunities ("surroundings"?), then Jokowi’s main prime objective may yet be realised.
*
