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”.

In the Forum page of today’s Straits Times, Mr Visakan Veerasamy, commented on Tuesday’s Parliament snapshot which highlighted that “most top-scoring students live in HDB flats.” The impression given was that students living in HDB flats outperform those living in private housing. Mr Veerasamy pointed out the flaws in the way the statistics was used!

According to the letter from Mr Veerasamy:

About 82 per cent of Singaporeans live in public housing. More than 60 per cent of the top 10 per cent of PSLE scorers live in HDB flats. More than 50 per cent of Secondary 1 students enrolled in Integrated Programme (IP) schools live in HDB flats. But the same statistics also mean that while only 18 per cent of Singaporeans live in private housing, they account for almost 40 per cent of the top PSLE scorers and more than 40 per cent of IP school enrolment. Let us not deny the obvious, which is that SIngaporeans who can afford to live in private housing end up in better schools (emphasis mine). Perhaps thes estudents are mor eprimed to succeed or can afford costly private tuition.

What is amusing about this is how statistics was used initially. But then again there are people out there who wants to believe there is a level playing field in Singapore and it is all a meritocracy! Mr Veerasamy was spot on when he wrote:

Being able to afford private housing gives students a statistical edge over the average HDB dweller.

“As a former high school teacher, I always worried about whether it was better to teach less in greater depth or more with no real depth. This study offers evidence that teaching fewer topics in greater depth is a better way to prepare students for success in college science.”

- Robert Tai, Associate Professor, University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education

In a post on the teaching of science, I have put forth the view that not much science if actually being taught in Singapore schools. I was referring to the lack of the teaching and application of scientific inquiry in Singapore schools. What it means is that the teaching approach for science and the humanities in Singapore is probably no different as what they amount to most of the time is a strong reliance on textbooks and teacher-prepared notes. Not much in the way of skills to differentiate a student of science from a student of the humanities. I also suggested that perhaps this is because of the high stakes examinations-based science curriculum in Singapore.

The high stakes examinations in Singapore schools also meant that a premium is given to the teaching of a wide range of topics rather than depth. This I have suggested is a reason for the lack of proper teaching of concepts. Teaching is at best tuned at the superficial level of the kinds of examination questions that students in Singapore schools are likely to face at the PSLE, GCE O and A levels. In the light of this it is important for us to take note of a recent study made in the US. The study found that “high school students who study fewer science topics, but study them in greater depth, have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less time on each.”

The study (click here for more) done by a team comprising of Associate Professor Robert Tai of the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, Marc S. Schwartz of the University of Texas at Arlington, and Philip M. Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, compared the performance of 8310 students. They found that in courses that stress mastering a particular topic had double the impact on students as compared to those students in courses that touched on every major topic.

In another interesting conclusion, the team found that standardized testing “may not capture a student’s high level of mastery in a few key science topics.” Tai also noted that teachers who “teach to the test” may not be properly preparing their students’ chance of success in college science courses.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore should take note of this study. It is another piece of evidence which shows that the Singapore’s education system while garnering lots of accolades is in serious need of a major overhaul. If Singapore is to prove itself competitive in the economic and scientific fields it has to produce students who have greater and deeper mastery of what they have learned rather than make them just masters of high stakes examinations and international surveys like TIMSS.