By: Afrianto Daud
(This article was frist written for the Jakarta Post)
Yet, the government does not seem to change the master plan it has made. This
can be seen from the statement of Prof M Nuh, Kemendikbud’s minister, saying
that the Curriculum 2013 will go ahead as planned by July 2013. Nuh insisted that
the rejection was not the thing to worry because all the preparations have been
set up (Kompas, 3/16/2013). It seems that the socialization and the public hearing
made by the government functions only as a 'lip service' within the curriculum
change administrative procedures. Whatever feedbacks and public inputs it gets,
the government already has a default plan, the curriculum will continue to be
run as planned earlier.
A curriculum change within an education system in any country is actually a common thing, even a necessity. This is because the world inside and outside schools keeps changing, sometimes with a speed even faster than expected. So, the curriculum change is needed in the context of answering the challenges, problems and needs we are currently facing.
However, in Indonesia, recent curriculum changes often bring noise as the
changes did not give enough time for each educational stakeholder to really
understand the concept of change. Once again, a short test period of public hearing
was more impressed only as a lip service
by the government. In developed countries, like Australia, public testing of
curriculum change can take up to four years. Even after the change takes place,
there will be still an ongoing consultation. For us, the public test of a curriculum
only takes place for a few months.
The absence of a comprehensive research-based evaluation of the implementation
of the previous curricula is also among the reasons that make the resistance is
getting stronger. The ongoing curriculum, 2004 KBK curriculum which was then
refined by KTSP in 2006, is still realtively new. There may be even some
teachers in a particular area who are still struggling to understand and apply
the KTSP. However, today they are again shocked by the government's plan to
re-change the curriculum.
Reading some of the basic philosophy and concepts within our previous curricula, then we will find that the theoretical concepts offered in the curricula are all good. Some of the ‘new’ important points proposed in the curriculum 2013 have actually also been mentioned in the preceding curricula. In other words, excluding the addition of learning hours and the dismissal of some subjects policies, the ‘new concepts’ of change offered by the government in Curriculum 2013 are not purely new.
The
emphasis on thematic learning in the elementary level, for example, has also
been named in the 2004 KBK curriculum; that at the level of elementary,
classroom teachers should implement an integrated learning that uses themes to
relate some subjects to provide meaningful experiences to students. The
emphasis on the pocess assessment and portfolio, in addition to product assessment,
is not a new issue either. The KBK curriculum with KTSP have also mentioned
this concept. This is not to mention when it comes to emphasis on active
learning methodologies. This concept has been very long touted, even since the
1984 curriculum with its very popular method - CBSA.
Therefore, what is more interesting to study and ponder now is why a lot of great concepts in our curricula did not work well in the field as as expected?
Answering these questions is certainly not a simple matter, because there are so many interrelated variables influencing the success of an educational process. The culture of a nation, support from parents and the community, the environment, policy in education and learning methodologies are among the factors. However, of all the variables, I think the teacher's competence and commitment are among the main factors that will determine the great concept in the curriculum can be successfully implemented in the field.
Yes, teachers. They are indeed the major players in our efforts to advance the national
education. It is the teachers who are in the frontline dealing directly with
the students in the real world. They will translate the nicely written concepts
in the curriculum documents into a real action in the classroom. I think that
everyone, including the government, is aware of this.
Therefore, if the government urges to implement this new curriculum by July
2013, it must seriously prepare these teachers in order to understand the
concept of the curriculum and able to use it in the classroom. The bottom line
is the government is obliged to conduct effective socialization and training
series. This is not an easy task considering the size and the wide range of our
national education with more than 2.9 million teachers scattered around 208,701
schools across the country.
The most serious challenge is to train primary school teachers to be ready to
conduct the integrative thematic learning. Not just because of the majority of them
are rarely touched by trainings, it is also because they have been ‘fossilised’
with the subject-based learning approach over many years. So imagine how
challenging (not to say difficult) when teachers must incorporate all basic
competencies of the various fields of study (Mathematics, Bahasa Indonesia, Civics,
Sport and the Arts, and Religion) in one time meeting of creative learning.
The burden on the government to train these teachers will be heavier especially
if it is associated with the demands of the curriculum that requires teachers
to develop the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domain equally. We are not
yet talking about Bloom's taxonomy details that emphasize the need for a
teacher to gradually develop the learning process to focus on improving the
ability of students from the lower to the level of ideal competence; from knowing,
understading, to applying, analysing, syntesising, and evaluating.
Training teachers to skillfully deploy portfolio assessment is also another
challenge. Not only because this kind of assessment requires a strong
commitment and specific skills from teachers in implementing it, but also
because the teachers are still 'haunted' and 'distracted' by other valuation
models that are also considered important, such as the National Exam, which is by
principles opposed to the model of portfolio and process assessment.
Above all, the hardest challenge is how to change the mindset of teachers
before implementing the new curriculum. Training that focuses only on the
artificial change, such as introducing the teachers to the new concepts or
skills in the curriculum in 2013, would never make substantive changes in the
field. All great changes always begin from changing the way of thinking. Therefore,
a revolutionary training and socialization method involving great motivators,
psychologists and professional pedagogue is necessary.
The question then is “can the government really prepare these teachers before
the new curriculum is actually implemented (in some pilot schools) within this
relatively short time?” The government needs to seriously address these
concerns. We certainly do not want that the fantastic budget (Rp 2.49 billion) will
evaporate in vain, if this great project is not well planned, and
professionally executed.
* The writer is teaching at FKIP of Riau University, a PhD candidate in the School of Education, Monash University in Australia.
* The writer is teaching at FKIP of Riau University, a PhD candidate in the School of Education, Monash University in Australia.
2 comments
commentslove the articel. hope you share more sir. :)
ReplyThanks mas Maulana
Reply