Chapter 1. Access to Quality Education
8. Recommendations for consideration by Government
The key objective for access in the next five years must be to ensure that investment in providing access includes equitable access to quality.
Mobilising the resources for equitable access to quality will require a strong focus on efficiency and targeting which has implications for greatly improved information management systems and enhanced capacity at local government level for analysis and planning. Flexibility and innovation at the policy level will be facilitated by a more holistic and coordinated approach between levels of government and the national ministries responsible and between the separate Directorates-General in MoEC.
The key directions for consideration by government in increasing access to quality education are -
1. Establish a comprehensive policy framework for more effective and efficient supply of education in low density and isolated areas, including options for one roof schools and/orcombined SMP and SMA levels; clustering or consolidation of small schools, multigrade teaching and support via distance learning technologies;different staffing allocations, class structure, pedagogy, funding formulae and school construction standards) - in other words, a Small Schools Strategy. The impact of this comprehensive policy framework should be the implementation of more innovative and flexible school structures and staffing policies and different resourcing formulae for small schools and low density population areas in order to be more responsive to local needs and be more cost effective.
2. Required each district/city to analyse its profile respect to enrolment, transition and completion rates and develop a plan, not just targets, to improve these rates, especially for poor and isolated communities. Improvement plans should include a mix of pro-poor programs (such as welfare support, homework centres, community-based programs to support and monitor student attendance and progress, mentoring and home-school liaison activities) as well as support for quality teaching practices which are aimed at increasing student motivation, engagement in and enjoyment of learning. School Principals and Supervisors must lead the implementation of these strategies at school level in collaboration with School Committees and other community structures.
3. Evaluate school admission systemsand local school enrolment practices that may be preventing marginalized children from equal access to good quality schools, and issue guidelines to ensure more equitable access.
4. Ensure collaboration between key national ministries and with local government to provide capacity development to improve and coordinate demographic planning, data collection and management at city/district level for more equitable and efficient provision of education across both public and private sectors,up-scaling innovative solutions where these have been found to work .
References
1 Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership, ACDP (2014): Support to Basic Education Minimum Service Standards Planning and Monitoring: Draft Report of 2013 Survey of MSS. February 2014.
2 Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity, CREATE: Accessed 2014 http://www.create- rpc.org.
3 Australia Indonesia Basic Education Program, AIBEP: (2010). Indonesia Reality Check – Main Study Findings: Listening to poor people’s realities about basic education.
4 Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity, CREATE:ibid.
5 Suharti: (2013a) Trends in Education in Indonesia in Suryadarma D. and Jones G.: Education in Indonesia. Indonesia Update Series. College of Asia and the Pacific. The Australian National University. Published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Singapore.
6 International Labor Organisation, ILO: (2011). Program Sekolah Satu Atap dan Dampaknya pada Pekerja Anak: Sebuah Studi Kasus di Kabupaten Sukabumi. ILO-Indonesia.
7 The Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (2013): Support to Basic Education Minimum Service Standards Planning & Monitoring. Draft Report on 2013 Survey of Basic Education Minimum Service Standards. 11 November 2013.
8 OECD (2013) PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do – student performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Vol 1) PISA OECD Publishing.
9 Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity, CREATE: (2011). Making Rights Realities - Researching Access, Transitions and Equity. University of Sussex, Centre for International Education, Department of Education and UK Department for International Development (DFID).
10 The Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership(2103): Basic Education Minimum Service Standards. 11 November 2013.
11 The Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (2103):Rapid Assessment of the Cash Transfer for the Poor Students Program/Bantuan Siswa Miskin (BSM). Draft Final Report 19 December 2013.
Chap
Introd
This chap level of s begins w Indonesi Followin subject d methods and the approach and activ
Figure
Educator on a dail situation curriculu
pter 2. K
uction
pter provides schooling. It a with a brief d a which have g a country’s domains (e.g.
s and process breadth, dep h for the lowe vities for one
e 26. Curricu
rs also acknow ly basis throu n. This is how um isa powerf
GOAL
CURRICU
EXPECT STUDE OUTCOM
Kurikulu
s an overview also analyses t definition of ‘c e influenced t
s agreed goa mathematics ses teachers s pth and order er primary sc semester.
lum as the en
wledge a “hid ugh the range w students lea fulfactor in th
LS
• St
• St
ULUM
• R
• S to
• A
• A
TED NT MES
• W c K
um 201
w of the 2013 the risks and curriculum’ a he new curric l and purpos s, science, civ hould take in r of topics. Fo hool and pro
nabling mec lea
dden curricu e of interactio arn to be as
e developme tatements of tatements of
ationale, fram ubjects, stand opics;
Approach to te Assessment pr What students an do. Also ex Knowledge and
3 – Wh
curriculum, w challenges in and some bac
culum.
se of educatio vics) that stud n particular su
or example, K ovides a stude
chanism to tr arning outcom
ulum”, meani ons, relations distinct from ent of social sk
the goals of e values and cu
mework, struc dards, compe eaching (peda rocess and ac s understand, xpressed as S dAttitudes.
at are S
with an outlin n implementin ckground abo on, curriculum
ents should s ubjects and w Kurikulum 201 ent teacher w
ranslate the g mes
ng the inform hips, rules an m their learnin
kills, values an education.
ulture.
cture, hours of etencies, scop agogy); samp
tivities; stude , know and
kills,
Student
ne of the spe ng the new cu out recent cu m statements study at each with particular 13 specifies a workbook whi
goals of educ
mal, unplanne nd social expe ng to know a nd character.
f instruction;
pe and sequen le lesson plan ent work samp
ts Learn
ecific changes urriculum. Th urriculum dire s generally sp level and the r age or abilit an integrated ich includes t
cation into st
ed learning th ectations in th and to do. Th nce of ns;
ples;
ning?
s for each e chapter ections in pecify the e learning ty groups, thematic the topics
tudent
hat occurs he school he hidden
1. The origins of the current curriculum in Indonesia
The first Indonesian curriculum document was set out in 1947 and ten significant revisions or new curriculum documents have been issued between 1964 and 20131. For teachers, this may seem to be a lot of revisions, however, to keep pace with both social and economic development, the curriculum must change to reflect changes in socio-economic conditions and expectations. Kurikulum 2013 has grown out of the Competency-based Curriculum (KBK 2004) and the introduction of school-based curriculum development (KTSP 2006).
1.1 Competency-based curriculum (2004–2012)
The first truly competency-based national curriculum was implemented from 2004 to 2012. It reiterated the responsibility of the national government to provide a single national curriculum taking account of: the development of faith and character; the need to develop students’ cognitive skills and interests; national diversity and the needs of national and regional development; the demands of business; the development of science, technology and the arts; globalisation; and national unity and values. In this broad context, the goal of education was expressed as developing the potential of all students as human beings of faith and devotion to God and to develop their character, healthy lifestyle, intellect, skills, creativity, independence and responsible citizenship.
The National Education Standards Board (BSNP) was established in 2005 with a mandate to develop and monitor the curriculum. Teams of expertsdeveloped eight National Standards. These standards defined the competencies and levels of service to be achieved in the following areas – Learning Content for all subjects, including formal Religious Education; Learning Process (i.e. pedagogy, lesson planning, assessment);
Graduate Competencies (i.e what students must be able to do); Competencies of Teachers and other Education Workforce personnel (e.g. principals, supervisors); Equipment and Infrastructure Standards;
Management Standards; Financing Standards; and Education Evaluation.
The eight standards were developed over time. They were issued at irregular intervals by a series of regulations, with the last standard (Finance) completed in 2010. The format and level of detail varied considerably between each standard. The standards were intended to be initial statements that would be reviewed and revised. However the Board was not resourced sufficiently to review implementation or to make the planned revisions. At the same time, a series of regulations in 2006 established that each school should develop its own curriculum (KTSP), based on the Content Standard and Graduate Competency Standard, taking into account local needs and circumstances.
1.2 School-based curriculum development (KTSP) (2006)
While this requirement for school-based curriculum development was in tune with international trends, possibly its real importance was to reflect the intention of Law 20/2003, which described the different but complementary roles of national and local government in the provision of education: in this case, a curriculum designed nationally, adapted and delivered locally. From the start, it appears teachers were unprepared for the requirement for school-based curriculum development. It required a different mind-set and approach from their current teaching roles or anything they had experienced before. Despite in-service training modules and support from Teacher Working Groups, the KTSP was widely perceived as an extra burden for teachers, many of whom could not fully appreciate the rationale of a democratisation of education when their own schooling, teacher training and experience had been entirely a top-down approach.
1.3 Drivers of curriculum change (2010–2012)
The difficulties expressed by teachers in developing school-based curriculum (KTSP) was a key factor in the decision for a new national curriculum. However, there were also other issues of concern. Within the content of the curriculum, many of the standards were considered unachievable for most students. The low performance of students on international tests was seen to be, in part at least, the result of a mismatch between the content of the maths and science curricula and what was expected internationally. Many stakeholders also believed that the number of subjects in the primary curriculum was excessive and this
“over-crowded curriculum” was having a negative impact on students’ mastery of the basics and their well being.
Other concerns related to how the curriculum was being implemented and supported. Schools were unable to ensure the supply of textbooks required for all subjects, and the Ministry was not able to control the quality of textbooks emanating from a large number of contractors. Classrooms appeared to be dominated by rote learning, and schools were becoming “exam factories” where students were coached to pass an exam – rather than schools being genuine learning environments which would foster children’s creativity and higher order thinking skills. There was uncertainty and lack of confidence in what students were learning under the school-based approach.
The Ministry also wanted to address contextual and behavioural issues. In response to mounting concern that the primary curriculum was overcrowded and diluting a focus on the basics, the new curriculum was streamlined and the number of separate subjects decreased. To address concerns that students were not receiving enough face-to-face teaching time, the length of the school day was increased and, largely as a response to media reports and stakeholder concerns about unruly behaviour in secondary schools, the overall time allocated for character education, civics and citizenship and religion was increased.
In addition, the 2010–2014 Medium Term Development Plan (RPJM) gave legitimacy to a review of the curriculum when it noted in the education chapter that “the education system is not yet well-geared to develop independent learners with the capacity to think critically, communicate effectively, to work in teams and foster entrepreneurship”. The RPJM proposed that one of the actions to support Priority 9 should be: “developing national and local curriculum that is responsive to developments in science and technology, culture and the arts as well as to global, regional, national and local needs, including religious education, physical development and the integration of life skills in education to develop the work ethos and entrepreneurial ability of students in the context of supporting education for sustainable development.” 2
2. Overview of Kurikulum 2013
In August 2012, the Minister for Education and Culture announced a curriculum review. The existing documents were immediately reviewed and a new curriculum for primary, junior secondary and senior secondary was developed. The work was guided by the Deputy Minister for Education and Culture, assisted by an Expert Group and a team of Resource Persons, together with the considerable resources of the Ministry.
The theoretical basis underpinning the new curriculum included many features of good practice from across a range of countries. In particular, the new curriculum specified competencies in each subject in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes. It supported a more integrated approach to learning (e.g. integration of ICT, language and culture in Junior Secondary) and aimed to foster a more open and student-centred teaching/learning paradigm, including enquiry methods, using multiple sources of information, and learning to collaborate to solve problems. This replaced the old paradigm which had been teacher-centred, teacher- directed and dominated by rote learning and memorisation in the majority of schools.
The approach to formulating content for the new curriculum involved nominated experts reviewing current content and process standards in terms of relevance and level of difficulty, streamlining and eliminating
content where necessary and adding new topics in line with international curriculum expectations (e.g.
incorporating knowledge and skills assumed by PISA and other international tests).
The review of the existing curriculum and the draft Kurikulum 2013 were completed in approximately 12 - 14 weeks, with four weeks of consultation afterwards. Compared to many other countries, this was an extremely fast process and very “top-down”. The draft curriculum was issued only in outline form (PowerPoint slides), which limited the opportunity for deep professional dialogue and community engagement on its educational and philosophical underpinnings. Following the short consultation period and considerable commentary in the media, several significant changes were made, including re-installing science as a subject within the curriculum for Primary Grades IV – VI.
The final version was a total package comprising a new structure, new content, new pedagogy, centrally- developed textbooks (to be developed) and a phased teacher training and implementation plan for 2013-16.
For the first year, the initial objective was to roll out the curriculum to 30,000 schools but this was scaled back to a pilot of 6,410 schools by a decision of the Parliament. Following the pilot, the new curriculum was formalised by a series of regulations in 2013 and the phased implementation plan for 2014-15 was commenced, with full implementation to be achieved in 2015-16. Training of 1.4 million teachers was scheduled to take place in the first half of 2014 for the 2014–15 school year.
2.1 Primary curriculum – summary of changes
The number of lessons per week is increased by four from 26 to 30 in Lower Primary and from 32 to 36 in Upper Primary. Bahasa Indonesia is positioned as the foundation for learning in all subjects and the allocation of lesson units to subjects includes additional lessons in Bahasa Indonesia for Grades I – III but this increase also incorporates the teaching of science and social science within Bahasa Indonesia using an integrated thematic approach. Lessons are 35 minutes each and, therefore, the total hours of scheduled formal face-to-face lessons ranges from 17.5 hours (Lower Primary) to 21 hours per week (Upper Primary).
For a detailed list, see Appendix 1, Table A1.
In upper primary, core academic subjects make up just over half (approx. 56 %) of the total learning time:
22 lessons are allocated to the basic skills (language, maths), science and social sciences
9 lessons to arts, Physical Education (PE)/Health/Sports and Culture
8 lessons allocated to Religion and Civics/Citizenship.
The integrated thematic approach in Lower Primary incorporates content from all the disciplines into the teaching of basic competencies using themes to integrate knowledge. This approach is to be supported by the provision of a single student textbook/workbook for each semester which includes activities relevant to the themes. This removes the necessity for separate textbooks and workbooks for each subject in the lower primary. It also reduces some of the burden on teachers for lesson planning, but may have the unintended effect of stifling creativity and professionalism if they simply follow the student workbook.
2.2 Junior Secondary curriculum – summary of changes
The number of lessons per week was increased from 32 to 38 lessons of 40 minutes each. The number of subjects was reduced from 12 to 10 by deleting Personal Development and taking out Local Content as a separate subject, giving schools the option to include Local Content in Arts and Culture (e.g. a local language) or in Craft. English language was retained as a compulsory subject for four lessons per week.
As in the primary curriculum, Bahasa Indonesia is positioned as a tool for integrating knowledge across the curriculum. Each subject is designed to support all competencies and use a problem-solving (scientific) approach.
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is not listed as a separate subject but intended to be integrated in all subjects. This may be difficult to implement for two reasons – the majority of schools do not have the resources in every classroom for this to occur andmost subject teachers lack the skills and knowledge themselves to teach their students about the effective use of ICT and its creative learning opportunities. Some educators have argued for more expert teaching of ICT at all levels of schooling, in particular to provide more equity for students who do not have ICT access at home. For a detailed list of lessons by allocation, see Appendix 1, Table A2.
Compulsory Scouting (for both Primary and Junior Secondary) is included as an extracurricular activity to support character development and is to be conducted in addition to the timetabled lessons. Academic subjects (Maths, science, social science and language) comprise about 66% of total learning time. The balance is made up of six lessons for Religion and Civics/Citizenship and eight lessons for PE/Health/Sport, Arts and Crafts. The total lesson time is 25.3 hours per week.
2.3 Senior Secondary curriculum – summary of changes
After completing Junior Secondary, students may choose either the academic (SMA) or vocational (SMK) stream for Senior Secondary. The majority of parents prefer SMA over SMK and have a preference for public rather than private Madrasah however their choices are significantly constrained by supply side limitations, which are reinforced by entrance exams, enrolment criteria and by a number of fees.
In both SMA and SMK there are compulsory and elective subjects. The compulsory general education component for both the academic and vocational streams of Senior Secondary includes:
12 lessons of academic study
5 lessons for Religion and Civics/Citizenship
7 lessons for Arts, PE/Health/Sports and Craft.
The total of 24 lessons in the compulsory component constitutes about half the overall minimum curriculum pattern for Senior Secondary. See Appendix 1, Table A3: Allocation of lessons in Senior Secondary School.
The elective curriculum choices for SMA (academic stream) include three streams, each of which contains four subjects. The elective streams and subjects are: Maths/Science (comprising Maths, Biology, Physics, Chemistry); Social Studies (comprising Geography, History, Sociology/ Anthropology, Economics) and Languages (comprising Bahasa Indonesia, English, another foreign language, Anthropology). These subjects are allocated three lessons each in Grade X and four lessons each in Grades XI and XII. In addition, four to six lessons per week are provided for advanced (deeper) study in students’ elective disciplines. For the allocation of lessons, see Appendix 1, Table A4.
Students in SMA must study a minimum of 42 lessons per week in Grade X and 44 lessons in Grades XI and XII. This minimum pattern of study is made up of their general compulsory subjects (24 lessons) and one discipline (12 to 16 lessons) plus four to six lessons of advanced (deeper) level study. Students may elect more than one discipline, taking their total up to 60 lessons in Grade X and 72 lessons Grades XI and XII.
The curriculum for SMK (vocational stream) includes similar basic compulsory core subjects as SMA in Grades X and XI, but these are reduced in Grade XII and additional lessons taken in the chosen electives. There are two compulsory general vocational strands and two specialised elective vocational studies.
The compulsory general vocational subjects are Life and Career Skills (Grades X to XII) and Computer and ICT studies (Grade X only). The specialised vocational electives are selected from six broad vocational skills areas:
Engineering Technology; Information and Communications Technology, Health Professions; Arts, Crafts and Tourism; Agro-business and Technology; and Business and Management. In all, 40 courses of study are offered under these vocational areas but each SMK school usually is only able to provide a small range of these. The subjects offered by individual SMK are intended to reflect the demand for skills, both locally and nationally, to maximise employment opportunities for youth and to enhance national productivity and