Mulla Nasrudin went to see a rich man.

‘Give me some money.’

‘Why?’

‘I want to buy…an elephant.’

‘If you have no money, you can’t afford to keep an elephant.’

‘I came here’, said Nasrudin, ‘to get money, not advice.’

~ from The Pleasantries of the Incredible Mulla Nasrudin by Idries Shah

That’s a funny tale that I have found to be true at different levels in relation to my experience as a consultant to schools.

I have come across schools trying to embark on ambitious projects that were currently beyond their means. For example, schools in Indonesia are scrambling to offer IGCSE to their students. Many do so without knowing fully the implications of such a move. For starters, doing the IGCSE means that the language of instruction has to shift to the English language. Most Indonesian schools simply do not have the teachers who can offer this prerequisite. I hope Indonesians reading this will not find this to be an attempt at disparaging their abilities. I have met many great Indonesian teachers. But all too often a TOEFL score of 500 is taken as an acceptable level of English language mastery for teachers. But surely, that is inadequate for those who want to use it as a language of instruction. Surely this is a serious hurdle that has to be overcome before trying to get on board the IGCSE train? Some schools have resorted to importing teaching staff from English-speaking countries like the Philippines and Singapore. But they are a lot more costly than Indonesian teachers and I will not advocate for, among other reasons, it will take away much needed jobs for the Indonesians. This has led to the “token native-speaker” in many such schools.

I also like that tale narrated above because when the Mulla was caught out, he seems to hesitate as he knew that he didn’t have a good reason to be given money. Then he came up with an excuse that he wanted to buy an elephant! This again is like how some schools behave. They need a marketing ploy to get the students, so they quickly jump on the first thing that perhaps comes to their mind, elephant-sized projects like the IGCSE.

Sadly, his concluding statement has a lot of truth about the situation with some schools. To give an example (and at the risk of sounding as if schools must accept the advise of those they consult), schools still go ahead with the IGCSE despite being advised not to do so by their consultants. So instead of ‘I came here to get money, not advice,’ what you get is the equivalent of ‘I came here to get IGCSE from you, not advice’. Of course if they seek the advice of the salesmen, they will encourage you to buy the elephant!

Think about it. There is much to learn from Mulla Nasrudin. If you like to read more similar tales from Mulla Nasrudin, click on the elephant.

I have read some concerns about the sekolah-sekolah berstandar internasional (SBIs) in Indonesia. One of these concerns is the reduction of the Indonesian identity as a result of the attempted shift towards international educational standards.

I can understand the concerns. I think this is again (as I have been saying all these while) there is a general confusion about what an “SBI” means. One of the most glaring problems that is the result of this confusion is the copying of a model which is perhaps most unsuited for Indonesia. Here I am talking about the Singapore school model that has often been adopted by schools in Indonesia as the model par excellent. This adoption of the Singapore model may be due to a few reasons.

Firstly, it may be due to Singapore’s international reputation for producing “top” students in international olympiads and also in international surveys like TIMSS. Secondly, it is due to Singapore’s proximity to Indonesia which perhaps serve to remind Indonesians of what is lacking in their educational system especially bearing in mind how small Singapore really is in comparison to giant Indonesia. Thirdly, wealthy Indonesians have historically sent their children to Singapore before the financial meltdown of the 1980s for an education and that is the education system they are most familiar with. It is not a surprise therefore that they look to Singapore as a model. Fourthly, the setting up of the Singapore International School (SIS) with its Singapore curriculum in Jakarta, brings the model even closer to Indonesians. The result is a rush to imitate the Singapore system. With Diknas promoting the idea of SBIs, the SIS model is seen as the model to follow for Indonesia. I believe that in general this is no fault of Diknas but more the fault of the owners of such schools which are usually privately-owned schools who have one eye fixed on profits. While making profits is not a sin, owners should be more serious about what education is about.

This blind aping of the Singapore system has meant a few things for these schools that aspire to be of international standards. Firstly, it has led to an emphasis on students taking international examinations like the iPSLE and the IGCSE because that is the nearest equivalent to the PSLE and the Singapore-Cambridge GCE “O” and “A” level examinations done in Singapore. The adoption of these examinations has meant that some subjects traditionally found in Indonesian schools have been given reduced emphasis especially subjects like Bahasa Indonesia and Social Studies with sometimes these subjects being combined. Nobody really stops to ask why international examinations are necessary in the first place. Indonesian students have had no  problems going to overseas universities in the first place without these examinations. They still can with their indigenous educational qualifications.

The second change which is perhaps another reason for the lament about the loss of the Indonesian identity, is the over-emphasis in the use of the English language. Here again there is an unchecked assumption that to be of international standard, a school must offer English as the medium of instruction. For schools like SIS where students take the iPSLE and the IGCSE, English is required as a medium of instruction because the examinations are done in English. Mastery of English is crucial. But some of the National Plus schools in Indonesia who have been touting themselves or planning to be SBIs have also chosen to take the same route. But what the owners have ignored is that, in the SIS model, almost all the teaching staff are very effective expatriate speakers of English. You have a staff of native English speakers supported by teachers from Singapore and the Philippines. Almost all the National Plus schools that want to offer IGCSE don’t have that. They have opted for a token approach with maybe one or two native English speakers. I do not mean any disrespect to Indonesian teachers but teaching in English is a problem for most of them. I am sure Indonesian teachers will agree that if Singapore teachers are asked to teach in Bahasa Indonesia to prepare their students in Bahasa Indonesia-based examinations, it will be pure folly. Using English as a medium of instruction requires a higher English language competency than a TOEFL score of 500. Even then Indonesian schools that aspire to be SBIs and touting the use of English as one of the essentials of SBIs, have great difficulty of getting teachers with that score of 500.

But despite these language difficulties, I believe Indonesians should not think that it is beyond them to get to the level of SBIs. But a re-intepretation of what an SBI is must be done. Perhaps, “re-intepretation” is not the correct term. A return to a proper understanding of what SBI is more accurate. Mastery of a foreign language was never one of the goals set for the SBIs by Diknas. What Diknas wants at the end of the day is a good educational standard where good teaching is done. Schools in Indonesia can set themselves that standard of quality teaching. By quality teaching it means teaching that is relevant to the needs of a modern Indonesian nation who aspires to be a member of this globalized world, yet firmly anchored in its Indonesian identity.

This can be done using the Indonesian curriculum with a lot of re-training for the teachers and some tweaking of the curriculum. Indonesian schools should still use the Indonesian language as the medium of instruction. This is for both nationalistic and pragmatic reasons. Indonesia is not Singapore and I believe the Indonesian schools will be better off as Indonesian schools then as “half-baked Singapore schools”.

There is an interesting article in the Straits Times today, 1 July 2009, by Dr Lee Wei Ling, the Director of the National Neuroscience Institute, Singapore. She was giving her views on “herd mentality” and “free will”.

In her article, she gave the current measure of taking temperature to screen for the H1N1 flu virus as an example of a herd mentality. Her argument is that despite evidence to show that it has not worked well citing Japan as an example where such measures were taken and yet it has the second highest number of confirmed cases in Asia despite its efforts at temperature screening. She reminded us that even without a temperature, a person can be carrier of the virus and such people would think they are healthy when in fact they can be dangerous transmitters of the flu.

In the educational field, the clamor for international examinations like the IGCSE, iPSLE or IB has never been louder. This is especially true in the Southeast Asian region where Singapore’s neighbors have been envious of Singapore’s reputation for an excellent education system. Many have seen Singapore’s reputation as due to its known reliance on examinations from international examinations syndicate like UCLES or the CIE. Many schools among Singapore’s neighbors now want similar examinations because of the prestige that such examinations can give to them. They feel that if they have international examinations, then they can be become “good” too.

In this rush to get themselves accredited to international examinations, few actually ask if such high stakes examinations can do what they should be doing, which is, whether it can assess students learning well. The assumption is that these established international examination syndicates know what they are doing as they have been in the business for a long time. But do their clients stop to think what IS BEING assessed in such international examinations? What kind of learning is being assessed? Is the area of learning being assessed just a narrow spectrum of skills and abilities, and intelligence?

Many educational experts have decried the dependence on such examinations to assess learning. This is because there is so much learning to be assessed and the different kinds of learning cannot be assessed in a one-size-fits-all way, that is through largely written examinations. Yet schools are rushing to get into the high stakes international examinations bandwagon.

Like the temperature-taking measures for the H1N1 virus, high stakes examinations are a very ineffective way of measuring what it is supposed to measure. It doesn’t take into account too many aspects of assessment in learning. Worse, it is also like the same example cited by Lee, it is also dangerous. It is dangerous because those who do well in such examinations will think they are intelligent and those who don’t will think that they are not when in reality many of the former are just examinations-smart and the latter are not.

It is also dangerous because it doesn’t assess people for the skills and knowledge that is required for adult life. The economy for example gets conned into accepting people who are examinations-smart as good and suitable workers. The loud complaints of employers about the quality of workers they get from schools and universities tell us the real story.

Dr Lee also had this conclusion about “free will”. She said:

“…the option to make a decision unconstrained by any circumstance. In many situations we cannot expect total free will. But where decision-making is constrained by mere social convention, we do have the choice to ignore conventions. More importantly, when decision-making is influenced by herd mentality, we should consciously avoid following the herd and make decisions based on logic.

If we fail to do so, we risk making the wrong decisions, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.”

I feel her conclusion should also be useful warning for all schools in the region about adopting the herd mentality with regards to the adoption of international examinations. The adoption of international examinations is not a silver bullet or panacea. It can actually be a trojan virus in disguise and undermine much that education really stands for. Instead of education, this virus will change the programming to give you examination-preparedness instead.