The fierce debates over the international
pilot project schools (RSBI) that once raged between education activists and
the government have come to a halt with the Constitutional Court ruling that
the establishment of the often-dubbed “elite” schools is not in line with the
Constitution.
In its verdict, the Constitutional Court said
that the RSBIs had created dualism and discrimination in the national education
system.
Also, with their exclusive use of English as
the medium of classroom instruction, the schools have been lambasted for
eroding national identity.
Yet, one day after the ruling the Education
and Culture Ministry seemed adamant that it would not immediately dismiss RSBI.
The government’s efforts to improve the system
of national education and to pursue quality education ought to be commended.
This is especially true given that most
Indonesians have been casting doubts over local education and opting instead
for overseas education.
While we have to extend our full support to
the government for its seriousness in boosting the country’s education, we need
to call into question the blind adoption of the label “international standard”
in the RSBIs, which is associated mainly with the mandatory use of English (as
an international language), imported curriculum and assessment instruments and
the idea of English native speaking.
Perhaps this label is attributed among
teachers, students and educational technocrats to pedagogical jargon like
international standard competence, which has become the guiding principle in
the curriculum design.
Needless to say, the idea behind the establishment
of the RSBIs is more political than pedagogical if contextualized in the global
spread of the hegemonic forces of Western education.
Thus, the often-voiced claim that the national
education system needs to adjust itself to the rapid changes of the globalized
world (through the establishment of RSBIs), so that local schools are poised to
compete with schools overseas is certainly a political statement — a statement
that cannot be perceived as neutral and innocent.
Complicating this statement, we can raise
critical question: From which perspective is the banal notion of globalization
viewed?
Clearly, in common knowledge the phrase
“international Standard” is construed as designating globalization from the
outside world, or what is often referred to as the Center World (the colonizing
countries) as opposed to the Periphery World (the colonized countries).
It is this understanding that the opponents of
the RSBIs object to and harshly denounce.
It is also because of this perception that they
have accused the RSBIs of perpetuating liberalism and capitalism in education
and also language imperialism.
Describing the fetish of the dissemination of
English through education, as has been the case in the RSBIs, linguist JE
Joseph (2004) said: “When members of the ‘peripheral’ population are themselves
the ones opting for education in the ‘center’ language or promoting it for
their countrymen, this merely means they have been co-opted into linguicism;
they are internal colonialists.”
Interestingly, most education observers
through their published writings in the media have unwittingly helped promote
pedagogical imperialism by extolling the superiority of education of the
center.
They uncritically believe in the reports
released by international associations such as Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS), Progress in International Reading
Literacy Studies (PIRLS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) — reports that provide a statistical comparison of the quality of
academic performance across different countries.
Inferences on quality education are made based
on these reports. Thus, if the reports show that other countries better
Indonesia in terms of academic performance, the conclusion is often hastily
drawn that the latter performs worse than its counterparts and is eventually
condemned for not having competitive values.
If these reports are used as a sole reference
for improving the country’s education system through, say, the creation of the
RSBIs, then we become engrossed in a pedagogical determinism without taking
into consideration the fact that the geopolitics of every country differs
considerably.
After all, just as resorting to the RSBIs as
the ostensible panacea of the country’s educational snag is a political choice,
so too is the attempt to revive national-based education as a reaction against
it.
The reconsideration of the relevance of
national identity, culture and ideology amid the suppression of Western
hegemonic pedagogy also has a political overtone.
To counter the spread of international schools
in Indonesia, A. Chaedar Alwasilah, a professor in education, has recently
proposed what he calls “ethnopedagogy” — a local genius-based pedagogy that
tries to reinvigorate local languages, cultures and ideologies.
This proposal certainly has a political
nuance, suggesting therefore that all pedagogical choices are value-laden and
political.
In the face of globalization, educational
policies certainly need to be altered in line with the needs and demands of the
modern world.
Yet, this shouldn’t always be done by
upgrading the status of local schools with an “international” label.
Instead, the revitalization of local wisdom in
education can strengthen the foundation of national education and serve as a
counter-politics to pedagogical determinism.
It can also give teachers the confidence to
face the unexpected challenges of the globalized world. Quality education
should begin from such an effort.
Setiono Sugiharto ;
An Associate Professor at Atma Jaya
Catholic University,
He is also chief editor of the
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching
JAKARTA POST, 12 Januari 2013
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar
Beri Komentar demi Refleksi