Alison Atwell, Jakarta
Education in Indonesia is a complex issue. Schools are dramatically under-resourced, teachers significantly underpaid. Is the fundamental issue then solely about whether traditional education is good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate? At the center of the education debate in Indonesia is the question of equity.
The implications of the lack of funding that causes school ceilings to buckle and cave, that results in students attending schools without the most basic sanitation requirements and that forces teachers to take second jobs so that they can make a basic living becomes an equity issue for all involved in Indonesian education.
Certainly Indonesian students that are fortunate enough to travel abroad for further education have been shown to achieve very well in the main and yes, they are undeniably a credit to their country. In interviewing Indonesian students desirous of studying in Australia I have been frequently impressed by their academic levels and their determination to succeed.
Yet it would be naivety to suggest that these students were drawn in the main from the schools of either the rural or urban poor. These students are rarely the ones that are emerging from the general system. The majority of these students come from Indonesian homes where parents have paid dearly for a sound education for their children in the National Plus schools, International Schools and other well-provided private schools that are flourishing throughout the country.
It is the rural madrasah and the struggling local government schools that are crying out for help. It is not that these schools reject the introduction of new methodology. They simply do not have the opportunity to be exposed to the latest pedagogy and thus fall back on old traditional methods such as rote learning and teacher centered classrooms because they know no other way.
Having recently conducted four years of action based research within impoverished schools in central Lombok I am convinced that school communities are not only open to change but also are desperate for change. In 2001 when the Government of Indonesia officially embraced decentralization schools throughout the country were given the task of becoming self-managing.
Unfortunately the meager funds available meant that most school communities didn't know where to start and for the past six years have struggled due to a lack of essential training required to frame this new method of operation. When given the opportunity to practice new methodology the school communities within my Lombok sample proved eager in their response.
Across many decades donors from a range of countries have worked hand in hand with the Government of Indonesia to introduce positive education reform throughout the country with admirable results. What has been introduced via multitudes of these well-devised programs should never be erroneously dismissed as simply ""fads"" or unwanted ""trends"".
It is significant to note however that if positive change is to occur that goes beyond short-term impact we must work with communities. Schools are not stand-alone institutions. Change is certainly a process rather than a product and the need to involve all stakeholders is essential if it is to be ongoing.
Fundamental to such change is the need to get to the heart of what carries new learning forward. The answer to this is leadership. Decentralization of schooling places a new focus on leadership. The previously popular authoritarian leadership is no longer relevant. Instead we have leadership that is shared, distributed and democratic.
It is leadership that provides meaning because it mirrors the fundamental essence of the school's organization in terms of its values, purpose and its integrity. Authentic school leadership is about relationship building. Relationships between leaders and followers are a major source of giving meaning to an experience of leadership. This is certainly a quantum leap forward for many in Indonesian schools who have long been used to an authoritarian style of leadership where orders and demands were issued from above and not to be questioned.
If Indonesian schools are to change to a ""bottom-up"" style leadership rather than maintaining a ""top-down"" style of leadership how is it possible at the same time to assume that the traditional style classroom where the teacher issued edicts from the front, could still be relevant?
Without changes in teaching and learning practices necessary changes in school communities cannot occur. Students must also be introduced to living the concept of leadership from an early age and thus become stakeholders in their own learning rather than passive recipients. Traditional style teaching methods are frequently authoritarian and sit uncomfortably within the framework of school based-management.
So what then is the way forward? No one is implying that we should throw away all the Indonesian schooling traditions of the past. Sadly recent experience through the tragedies at the Institute of Public Administration (IPDN) campus in Bandung have provided the bleakest scenario of what can occur when schooling does not move forward beyond an authoritarian framework.
As we mourn the death of Cliff Muntu, the latest victim of this system, we would all hope that this is a very extreme case while at the same time becoming ever vigilant that such a scenario should never ever be repeated where young lives are lost in the name of a formal tradition.
Indonesia has chosen a democratic way forward as a nation. It is therefore essential that the same process and underlying spirit be mirrored in Indonesian schools. If it doesn't work, let us all be determined to fix it!
The writer is an education consultant based in Jakarta and has Doctorate in education, through the University of Southern Queensland in the field of Educational Leadership. She can be reached at alison.atwell@centrin.net.id.
