JP/Wendra Ajistyatama
It may sound anachronistic to argue that the legacy of the past is still germane to the present time, when a new set of postulates are being endorsed and a priori projected to be the best candidate for the old one. This reflects what happens in our education system.
The swing of the pendulum syndrome has long infamously characterized our education backdrop in the country. Every installment of new ministers, abrupt changes in the curriculum takes place.
We, however, have little justification in equating this shift with Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift. Kuhn argues that paradigm shifts, a consequence of revolution in science, is apt to emerge as a result of breakdowns in the intellectual system.
The paradigm shows sign of instability if those working in the field discover anomalies or phenomena that cannot be solved by the established model. If these anomalies accumulate and remain unresolved, efforts are taken to design a new model. And if this new model proves to be more efficacious than the old one, a new paradigm emerges to replace the old one.
If we take a historical perspective of our education, every change in the curriculum cannot be claimed as an instance of signs of a breakdown in intellectual system, which triggers the shift of paradigm from the old to the new. Neither can we postulate that the alteration of the old curriculum to the contemporary one is imputed primarily to the unresolved anomalies in the former, as if the latter, the newly devised model, offers a magic potion to the former.
The fact that we can hardly elude problems besieging our education system, despite a regular curricular overhaul, shows that our endeavor so far has been a far cry from what education demands.
The apex of the problem here is that efforts to continuously overhaul our national curriculum have neglected philosophical perspectives on education, which has direct and indirect bearings on every facet of study and the practice of education.
No convincing evidence, for example, has been found that the change from the so-called Competency-Based Curriculum implemented nationwide in 2004-2005 to the current Education Unit Level Curriculum (KTSP) enhances the quality of education.
Instead, when the latter was first unveiled to the public, confusion occurred as there are considerable overlap between the two. Both curricula was built on a philosophy adhering to the life-performing tasks, which in the KTSP bears the name pendidikan kecakapan hidup (life-skill education) encompassing such personal, social, academic and vocational skills.
Now the advent of the imminently implemented Entrepreneurship-Based Curriculum (henceforth EBC) has become the locus of concern, igniting further pros and cons among teaching practitioners and education pundits.
Again, when critically scrutinized, we can find in this curriculum a degree of overlap with the previous two curricula. Despite no official curricular guide available now, it is reasonable to presume that the content of the EBC will have great emphasis on life-skill education, especially personal, social and vocational skill. Life-performing tasks, as were and are practiced, clearly have greater relevance to the concept of entrepreneurship.
Without a clear philosophical perspective on education in general and curriculum theory in particular, the implementation of the EBC nationwide is likely to face major obstacles.
Schools nationwide will likely face uncertainties and even confusion about how the operation of the term “entrepreneur” should be interpreted and then rendered in a more concrete and specific subcomponent of the curriculum, the syllabus. Conceptual analysis and clarification of the term should then become imperative to avoid ambiguities in its operation.
In addition, facilitating forces such as well-trained classroom teachers, the availability of well-developed and sequenced teaching materials as well as the instruments of assessment will pose no less serious problem. These three components are so inextricably bound that losing sight of one can detrimentally impinge upon the others.
All these logically bring us to the issue of economics of education. One may wonder, for instance, the cost of retraining classroom teachers to help them familiarize with the new curriculum, the cost of both professional and non-professional assistance, and the cost of other related supporting resources.
Another thing that should not be overlooked is the willing participation of teachers in implementing curriculum changes. As a change in curriculum has both harmful and beneficial impacts on classroom practice, teachers’ participation is undoubtedly the most essential aspect of introducing a new curriculum.
Given these constraints and uncertain education benefits we can reap from the curriculum change, the best choice we can opt for now is to continue the unfinished mission of M. Nuh’s predecessor, Bambang Sudibyo.
Devising a new curriculum, while the current model, the KTSP, has not been proven replete with anomalies, seems counterproductive. Many of the core educational activities (teacher certification program, professional training through a government appointed vocational educational institution, or LPTK, and a national exam, to mention just three), now underway, are principally guided by the KTSP.
Thus, implementing the new EBC will not only spark commotion, but demands the present system be overhauled, which is clearly unattainable and economically a waste. It seems that the implementation of the EBC nationwide poses more problems than provides solutions.
The writer is associate professor at Atma Jaya Catholic University, Jakarta. He is chief editor of the Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching.
