Posted by: Yusuf Efendy on: February 14, 2011
The public’s attention is now being absorbed by the circulation of a series of books depicting the life and career of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Using the so-called special allocation budget, the books have been widely distributed for consumption by elementary and junior high schools students in provinces such as West Java, Central Java and Banten.
Interestingly, circulation of the books has generated mixed reactions from politicians, teachers, education observers and the like. Some object to the distribution, saying that the books’ contents are not in line with what is prescribed in the national curriculum and are cognitively demanding for students to read. Others have harshly condemned the books on the grounds that there was a deliberate effort on the part of the government to promote the image of the President and hence their distribution was politically rather than educationally motivated.
Nevertheless, those who assented to the books’ circulation simply contended that the books would do no harm if they were used as enrichment reading materials. Books about any Indonesian political figure, these proponents say, shouldn’t be proscribed for educational consumptions.
Though they are not really relevant to the curriculum, the books can be used not only as enrichment reading materials, but also as supplementary learning materials, say in civics classes.
By that logic, it is fair to say that any kind of book – whether it is about about Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao Tse-tung – and other books disseminating communism shouldn’t be barred for similar reasons.
“It seems premature to say that students won’t be able to digest the contents of the books.”
Further, the former’s arguments for condemning the books due to political motives seem woefully naïve. To begin with, educational activities are never free from politics. For instance, decisions made to endorse curricula used by schools, to conduct the annual national exams, and to censor (by the National Book Center) which school textbooks should be and shouldn’t be used by students and teachers are all political decisions.
Whether we are conscious of it or not, teachers’ preferences for certain teaching methods, evaluations or assessment tools are never free of political reasons. In essence, education is always intertwined with politics.
Similarly, claiming that the books aren’t appropriate for students disparages students’ cognition. It seems premature to say that students won’t be able to digest the contents of the books simply because they are alleged to have political contents.
Any kind of book, including books about Yudhoyono, can certainly have an educational benefit depending on how they are read. If used in an academic context, classroom teachers will be faced with two options: They can use the books as a means of indoctrination or they can use them as a means of developing students’ critical thinking.
In the former, teachers would inculcate their students with a dogmatic attitude, something inimical to the development of students’ critical thinking.
In contrast, if teachers favor the latter option, the locus of concern then shouldn’t be whether the books are in line with the curriculum and whether the students’ cognitive development allows them to read the books but instead how teachers help students examine, challenge and interrogate what is written in the books.
Take, for example, series with titles such as Fair without Discrimination and Caring about Poverty. If intended as supplementary teaching materials, teachers can select content they think relevant to the current situation and have the class discuss it.
Classroom activities could be devoted to examining and challenging rather than simply presenting the content of the books to the students. Using pre-determined questions, teachers can relate what is described in the books to the current social reality the students are facing.
Actual reports from newspapers (e.g., editorial opinions) on similar topics and issues can equally be used as important teaching materials to either contest or support what has been written in the books. As such, they may help students discern differences between what constitutes mere opinion and what qualifies as fact.
Evaluating available evidence from different books and other reading materials can familiarize students with the skills of rebuttal and confutation that are needed for arguing and challenging prevailing opinions which might mask the real truth.
The writer is an associate professor at Atma Jaya University in Jakarta and chief editor of the
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
Posted by: Yusuf Efendy on: June 28, 2010
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Tue, 05/20/2003 12:44 PM | Opinion A | A | A | Sunitha Girish, Contributor, Jakarta
The Jakarta Post’s recent focus on international schools took me back to my own school days. Being part of an international school with air-conditioned rooms, a pool, well-equipped gym, attractive books complete with photos rather than drawings, students from all over the world, meaning lots of varied programs, an exciting curriculum, no end of the year exams, an active student council where we learned the fine nuances of governing, the promotion of common interests rather than the pursuit of self-serving interests and, most of all, humane, gentle, progressive and talented teachers, all seems like a dream today.
Policies like never giving an outright “”no”" to our answers (classes were an ocean of raised hands), making scrapbooks and evaluating them in “”our own words”", a mantra in our work, reading out stories to us right up to grade six to ensure we happily came to class to hear the continuation, the embodiment of teamwork in all our activities and most of all respect for our characters, contributed to a powerful combination of knowledge and understanding.
Obviously good infrastructure is a plus point but comes at a cost. Otherwise, what can schools do to become good? First of all, they can see value in the implementation of educational policies, programs and practices, considering the long-term impact of every action and basing them on research. The results, when applied, contribute to a steady climb for students from elementary, to middle to senior levels.
In elementary schooling (age five to seven), the emphasis would be on teaching through fun methods, a lot of arts and crafts, learning to get along and building trust in the teacher. Pressure is not beneficial therefore methodology reigns supreme.
Varied activities are employed as the attention spans of children are only one and half times their age. Not a time for competition. However exciting it is to discover the most “”amazing”" child it is detrimental to children’s interests and doesn’t help them in learning to respect each other for their differences. It has been proven that by the age of five, 80 percent of a child’s skills have been developed, so every child must be helped from then on. Written work is minimal as a child’s hands do not develop fully till the age of seven. Tests should be steered clear of. Appreciation for every child is the code. Words like “”bad handwriting”" or “”not neat”" are forbidden. Homework, if given, should be very light.
In middle schooling (age eight to 11), students are placed on track for mastering subjects of which the foundation has been laid earlier. Some homework is given with the aim being developing independence in tackling schoolwork.
However, it is important to remember, although homework ensures better grades the student’s bag should not weigh more than 10 percent of his weight. Thus the homework should be spaced out. By the age of 10, they can accept tests.
In senior schooling (age 12 to 17), students continue to acquire knowledge, discovering their areas of strength with the help of teachers. It is time for healthy competition induced by the students themselves, time to start debate sessions, to put on their own shows and to take home considerable amounts of homework.
The ultimate test, final exams, should ideally be given from grade eight onwards.
Factors like the curriculum, sports programs, extracurricular activities all matter. The academic curriculum must be designed for the average child (discovered through research) in order to help all of the students.
Obviously, it is only possible to improve a school’s programs if the parents and teachers cooperate. PTAs should be seen as joint efforts rather than as battlegrounds. Programs like in-house training for teachers help because teaching courses are often inadequate, leaving teachers confused by shy, sensitive or aggressive behavior. Teachers should not remind children of their vulnerabilities (why are you so silent, naughty, etc.).
They must them in mind and help them. They then can convey to the parents the positive aspects of the child’s character and skills. Parents in turn can let teachers know their appreciation of their sincerity.
However, no one parent or child should be pointed out. Good schools convey such messages through circulars with fair policies for all. Incidents of bullying, teasing or racist remarks should not be tolerated.
It is vital that the design of the education system and all involved with it like administrations, teachers and parents are extremely fair. The education system must be one where each child gets an equal opportunity to grow (children are the future), one that consistently avoids marketing hype (“”take only those four students so that the show looks good”") and allows imperfections from the students (being different is fine). This instills a sense of justice, idealism, knowing what is right and moving forward to change the wrong into right instead of fatalistically accepting it. By doing so every student finds his worth one day, and this is exactly what a good school helps in.
It is not easy for a school to overcome its problems overnight as most schools face vast curriculums, standardized tests and restrained budgets. However, if the principal, along with the teachers and parents have a sound vision, follow the latest educational policies and child psychology research, get input from the best schools, do appropriate budgeting and last, but not least, do some serious introspection, overcoming problems is certainly not unattainable.
Posted by: Yusuf Efendy on: June 28, 2010
Khairil Azhar, Jakarta | Thu, 05/27/2010 9:23 AM | Opinion A | A | A |
We were a bit surprised when some students said “muna banget” (what hypocrisy) in response to the “Go Green” campaign launched by teachers that suggested we should turn off unused lights and air-conditioners. Coincidentally, there was the Jakarta Green School 2010 competition that our school has been nominated for.
To the principal, in a meeting, a friend and I related to the students’ “sarcastic” comments. We realized that they were right to a certain extent.
There is always hypocrisy when we deal with something idealistic: We know the urgencies and ideals but we tend to forget to make them a reality or consistently maintain and keep the good things running.
Before I was moved to the Jakarta branch of the school I work for, in some occasions of meeting the parents, there were usually questions such as: “Why aren’t there air-conditioners in the classrooms? My child has been accustomed to an air-conditioned room.”
Or, “School tuition is expensive, shouldn’t schools buy air-conditioners? Shouldn’t we provide more facilities?” And there are some other similar questions.
Simply put, as if there is criterion: A good school is one with air-conditioned rooms. A cool school is a school with modern electrical equipment that resembles five-star hotels.
The talk about academic achievement comes later. Morality comes third or fourth or possibly is not important.
Here, in the Jakarta branch, we use air-conditioners. I don’t know exactly what the reason is. But, thank God, most teachers realize that they are dealing with the morality or attitudes to nature. With modern appliances in hand, some questions come to our minds, “With those contributions to global warming, are the efforts to make the school green at least equivalent. Or do our green initiatives counter the destruction we cause with use of electricity, fuel and the like.
Some years ago, in a visit to my former school, an Islamic traditional one, I was shocked and sad. Later on, after I became a teacher, I became more disappointed and blamed the change. The main yard, where we used to play mini-soccer at recess time and after school hours, was now occupied by an arrogant storied big building. The trees around it were chopped down. There was only cement and stone buildings.
I tried to ask some ustadz (teachers) about the change. Even I possibly was impolite in doing it (I later realized). One of them said that the school was really in need of buildings with modern facilities.
Another one said that it was not appropriate to reject the donations submitted by the generous people who wanted to see their money manifested into something long-lasting that the heavenly reward would never cease to pour on them. The other one said, “What we did was meet the standards of a modern school”.
What does education actually mean? Why should the quality of education be associated with nice buildings or modern equipment, which I found in some schools are unused or rarely in use? Is the wish of the students to play as normal children out of concern that they do not deserve to have even some space to play?
How could we make sure that the students learn about nature and greenery if there is no exposure and examples? Aren’t the open spaces at a school providing the inhabitants better atmospheres to breathe and think?
Every time I see a Western movie, a school advertisement, or even an educational brochure there is a touch of jealousy. First, such as in England, many old educational buildings are preserved well and have open spaces. I am jealous when I see greenery and big trees in the schools’ yards in Denmark or Finland. Compare this to the green drought and dust in many state or private schools in Jakarta
Second, I am jealous that good schools overseas have good traditions related to their concern for nature. When many of our students here prefer to staying in an air-conditioned room, their counterparts in California hike or enjoy scouting activities around the hills or valleys.
There are some private schools, as far as I know, which also have good traditions related to nature in Jakarta. But the ratio is likely to be disproportional. Here, for sure, most students are educated with paper and pencil, and are not taught about the resources sacrificed for these tools.
The presence of the Jakarta Green School program is therefore raising an audacity of hope. No bureaucratization. The judges, as far as I have read in the mass media, work independently. They are fully aware of “the sudden green”, which is likely to occur in some schools for the sake of the trophies. They are looking for traditions and habits and examples.
That’s the reason why, despite the hope to win the competition, we should keep telling the students that we absolutely must prove that we are not hypocrites. Being green is a way to educate ourselves about the violations against nature as well as find out the possible ways to restore it with what we have.
Later on, we will be able to proudly tell our children that we are definitely not “muna” because being green has become truly an educational practice. Amen.
The presence of the Jakarta Green School program is therefore raising an audacity of hope.
The writer is a teacher in Jakarta.
Komentar Pengunjung