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”.