O

n May 15, 2014, Indonesian presidential candidate Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo finally made his policy platform known publicly. Among other things, a point of interest is his vision for education.

Not only is education a key part of government policy, it also serves as a pillar of development, alongside health and infrastructure, which will shape and direct the next generation.

In relation to that, Jokowi proposes a '€œmental revolution'€ (or, more appropriately, a moral revolution) through character building. The greatest emphasis is placed on the elementary school level, with character education, ethics and manners making up 80 percent of the curriculum and the remaining 20 percent allocated to science.

I have no doubt of his good intentions to improve the country'€™s education system. Nevertheless, his statements will evoke criticism, which merits further attention.

CS Lewis once said '€œEducation without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a cleverer devil'€. In this case, the issue is dependent on how Jokowi perceives and what he means by '€œcharacter'€.

The fundamental question is what kind of character education curriculum will be implemented in schools. Does this mean that students will simply learn moral lessons and morality in lieu of science? Will character lessons such as politeness, honesty and loyalty dominate day-to-day learning? If yes, how will this be taught? What about testing and assessment?

The character of a person is something abstract; it cannot '€” and should not '€” be measured by numbers or a pass-or-fail grade.

Rather, it is an ongoing feature of someone'€™s life that will never cease to develop.

If this idea is implemented, it is more likely than not that the curriculum will change again, despite the fact that Indonesia only changed its curriculum a year ago. In fact, the 2013 Curriculum also emphasizes the importance of moral education. But this has sparked confusion in its implementation, for there is no one who really knows how to judge and assess a person'€™s character.

To allocate 80 percent of class hours for moral education at the primary school level is difficult to imagine, not to mention the hassles teachers will face in assessing and evaluating students'€™ performance and understanding what is being taught to them.

The implementation will also heavily depend on the quality and readiness of teachers, which is a serious problem in Indonesia, and most likely will remain a problem for years to come. The way that current teachers were educated is completely different to current educational concepts, which has resulted in generations with different characters.

It is not fair to expect a '€œgold-character'€ generation of students who are still being educated by teachers with questionable characters in relation to present views. To change someone'€™s character is not an easy thing, as it is something that has been long-ingrained in a person. Thus, the cost of implementing this proposal seems to exceed the benefit of the expected results, with a small chance of success.

Again, the answer to this very much depends on the question of how Jokowi perceives character.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether this '€œmoral revolution'€ can then make the country and its future generations better. A successful country is commonly rated by its strength in the fields of research and technology '€” not one that exalts character education '€” which is reflected since primary education by allowing students to explore an interest for science.

It does not mean that character education is not important, but it should be integrated into other subjects, through the behavior of teachers, who should be the real role models for their students. I highly doubt if moral education alone could alleviate Indonesia'€™s position in international student assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).

Character cannot be instilled by simply changing the curriculum or instigating a '€œmental revolution'€. Rather, it is through real examples from leaders that people take character traits. In this case, teachers (and parents) are the main actors responsible for serving as role models for students. Regrettably, this is something that our students do not see. In lieu of displaying good characteristics, teachers and school principals are the ones involved in leaking national exam (UN) answers, or assisting students during such exams.

To conclude, rather than striving for '€œa mental revolution'€, the government could '€” and should '€” focus on current educational polices. Strengthening teacher training or reviewing the implementation of university programs is a wiser, more realistic and more feasible option.

The writer is a student of development studies at the Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland.