Thinking outside the curriculum: Changing education

Salvatore Simarmata
(Originally published in the Jakarta Post 29th March 2008)

Many experts have made genuine suggestions on how to improve our education system, which is essential for the prosperity and liberty of our nation. But debates continue because there have been no significant changes -- an opinion shared by Abdullah Yazid in his opinion piece in the Jakarta Post (March 15, 2008).

As a teacher, I agree with his ideas but offer different solutions. It has been widely reported university graduates find it difficult to find work. They lack the skills and creativity necessary for the workplace.

Individual institutions should not be blamed. We need to be critical of our overall education system covering elementary to tertiary education, which is in need of transformation. We need an serious strategy to solve these problems.

A Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire, who wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed, explained true education goals could only be achieved by allowing the development of students' power to perceive and think critically. They should think about their existence in the world and they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process or in transformation.

Students and teachers discuss real problems existing in their society and proudly offer solutions through a dialectical process.

Of the four essential elements of education, curriculum is the most crucial aspect alongside the teacher, students and method. Comparing our curriculum with ones used worldwide might open our eyes and bring us to question our paradigms. Let us look at two prominent curricula and their strengths.

First, the University of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) successfully offers a variety of programs around the world, including Indonesia, to provide international qualifications for students aged 5 to 18. Many schools have adopted this curriculum. Many schools combine the Cambridge and our national curricula so their students can sit for the UAN final examination as well.

Schools using the Cambridge curriculum emphasize flexibility. From primary to secondary levels, students can choose electives based on their interests, which allows them to explore less theory-based subjects.

Second, the IB (International Baccalaureate) curriculum, a program for students aged 3 to 19, helps develop intellectual, personal, emotional and social skills, which are much needed in today's globalized world. I am impressed by its primary curriculum designed to give students skills to cope with their future, something we need to focus on in our disorganized primary curriculum.

Students study transdisciplinary subjects of global significance that provide a framework for self-exploration. They question who they are, how they express themselves, how they organize themselves and so on. Essentially, the flexibility and constant transdisciplinary inquiry are elements we could incorporate in our curriculum.

Such a curriculum allows teachers to create an active learning environment where students can identify their strengths and abilities to change their social conditions and problems.
Most of us are so controlled by our curriculum we are forced to study prescribed materials which are then tested in a national examination. I like raising challenging issues to my students to be debated and discussed. They come up with their own alternative solutions to problems. Last December, for example, we discussed the UN's Millenium Development Goals. To do so, I decided to skip a few modules from the curriculum or teach them less thoroughly.

Last February, the government announced sociology would be included in the UAN examination. As a sociology teacher, I now have to push myself just to make sure students remember and understand how to answer the questions. Should we restrict what we teach to the curriculum?

Adapting the curriculum has always been at the teachers' discretion. Teachers expand on the basic framework of the curriculum. It is an essential skill all teachers should be familiar with.

A teacher should be a facilitator and cultural educator encouraging students to critically articulate their opinions on social issues of concern and to suggest ways of resolving conflict in the real world. Cultural education is a tool, a helpful beginning which brings people and ideas together, people with a desire to accept responsibility for social change instead of living under the domination of powerful elites.

This kind of education could eradicate our severe corruption problems and other immoral acts if we also encourage vibrant, critical and broad-minded leaders.

We teach students many subjects at school every day, yet we do not teach them how to learn. There is a missing link; we want them to be successful but abandon them when they ask how to do so. I suggest students be taught learning skills from an early age and learn how to think critically so they become independent and pure learners throughout their lives.
.................................
The writer is a sociology teacher at Dian Harapan School. He can be reached here.