Original Posted By badakimut2013►


So what is Jokowi’s message?
BY YEN TZU-CHIEN
Sumber
Jokowi’s expressed the need to develop human resources. He reiterated his statement about Indonesia’s attitude problem by arguing that elementary schools in Indonesia are placing too much emphasis on academic performance. Jokowi argued that in the status quo, elementary schools spend 80% of the time on teaching academic subjects, which leaves a meagre 20% on the more important aspects of education such as discipline, character and attitude building. “Now when you see elementary school students going to school, they always carry big backpacks full of books. To me that’s wrong,” Jokowi asserted. “I will make it 20% academic works and 80% character building.”

I was baffled by Jokowi’s portrayal of the problem of Indonesia’s primary education. Indonesia’s education is known to be plagued by a host of problems including the lack of well-trained teachers, systemic cheating, and the lack of a sufficiently robust academic teaching. None of the above can be described as an over-emphasis on academic education that not only overwhelms the students with pressure, but also cripples the development of students’ character. In fact, according to the latest results of OECD’s PISA tests, 95.7% of Indonesia’s 15 year-olds are happy in school, even though that they ranked at the bottom of the 65 countries in reading, math, and science. In light of this, Jokowi’s talks of cutting back on the teaching of science to make room for attitude building was oddly out of place with reality.
More baffling still was Jokowi’s attempt to link his education strategy to his argument about the need to develop human resources. Jokowi began with a powerpoint slide detailing his view on the ideal percentage of teachings on academic subjects and character building (Elementary 20-80, Junior High 60-40, Senior High 80-20). Then out of nowhere, the audience were doused in nationalism with a photograph of elementary school children participating in a flag raising ceremony with the caption pembentukan karakter (character building). This was followed by a photograph of a group of bare-chested soldiers at attention, with their duty officer at the front, presumably shouting instructions to their faces, captioned disiplin: revolusi mental (discipline: mental revolution).

Original Posted By badakimut2013►
Is Jokowi’s ‘mental revolution’ a way out?
Sumber
On May 15, 2014, Indonesian presidential candidate Joko “Jokowi” Widodo finally made his policy platform known publicly. Among other things, a point of interest is his vision for education.

Not only is education a key part of government policy, it also serves as a pillar of development, alongside health and infrastructure, which will shape and direct the next generation.

In relation to that, Jokowi proposes a “mental revolution” (or, more appropriately, a moral revolution) through character building. The greatest emphasis is placed on the elementary school level, with character education, ethics and manners making up 80 percent of the curriculum and the remaining 20 percent allocated to science.

I have no doubt of his good intentions to improve the country’s education system. Nevertheless, his statements will evoke criticism, which merits further attention.

CS Lewis once said “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a cleverer devil”. In this case, the issue is dependent on how Jokowi perceives and what he means by “character”.

The fundamental question is what kind of character education curriculum will be implemented in schools. Does this mean that students will simply learn moral lessons and morality in lieu of science? Will character lessons such as politeness, honesty and loyalty dominate day-to-day learning? If yes, how will this be taught? What about testing and assessment?

The character of a person is something abstract; it cannot — and should not — be measured by numbers or a pass-or-fail grade.

Rather, it is an ongoing feature of someone’s life that will never cease to develop.

If this idea is implemented, it is more likely than not that the curriculum will change again, despite the fact that Indonesia only changed its curriculum a year ago. In fact, the 2013 Curriculum also emphasizes the importance of moral education. But this has sparked confusion in its implementation, for there is no one who really knows how to judge and assess a person’s character.

To allocate 80 percent of class hours for moral education at the primary school level is difficult to imagine, not to mention the hassles teachers will face in assessing and evaluating students’ performance and understanding what is being taught to them.

The implementation will also heavily depend on the quality and readiness of teachers, which is a serious problem in Indonesia, and most likely will remain a problem for years to come. The way that current teachers were educated is completely different to current educational concepts, which has resulted in generations with different characters.

It is not fair to expect a “gold-character” generation of students who are still being educated by teachers with questionable characters in relation to present views. To change someone’s character is not an easy thing, as it is something that has been long-ingrained in a person. Thus, the cost of implementing this proposal seems to exceed the benefit of the expected results, with a small chance of success.

Again, the answer to this very much depends on the question of how Jokowi perceives character.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether this “moral revolution” can then make the country and its future generations better. A successful country is commonly rated by its strength in the fields of research and technology — not one that exalts character education — which is reflected since primary education by allowing students to explore an interest for science.

It does not mean that character education is not important, but it should be integrated into other subjects, through the behavior of teachers, who should be the real role models for their students. I highly doubt if moral education alone could alleviate Indonesia’s position in international student assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).

Character cannot be instilled by simply changing the curriculum or instigating a “mental revolution”. Rather, it is through real examples from leaders that people take character traits. In this case, teachers (and parents) are the main actors responsible for serving as role models for students. Regrettably, this is something that our students do not see. In lieu of displaying good characteristics, teachers and school principals are the ones involved in leaking national exam (UN) answers, or assisting students during such exams.

To conclude, rather than striving for “a mental revolution”, the government could — and should — focus on current educational polices. Strengthening teacher training or reviewing the implementation of university programs is a wiser, more realistic and more feasible option.

The writer is a student of development studies at the Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland.

Salah satu pendapatnya ane rasa sejalan dengan PRABOWO
Karakter tidak dapat ditanamkan hanya dengan mengubah kurikulum atau menghasut "revolusi mental". Sebaliknya, itu adalah melalui contoh-contoh nyata dari para pemimpin yang orang mengambil sifat-sifat karakter. Dalam hal ini, guru (dan orang tua) adalah pelaku utama yang bertanggung jawab untuk melayani sebagai model peran bagi siswa. Sayangnya, ini adalah sesuatu yang siswa kami tidak melihat. Sebagai pengganti menampilkan karakteristik yang baik, guru dan kepala sekolah adalah orang-orang yang terlibat dalam bocor ujian nasional (UN) jawaban, atau membantu siswa selama ujian tersebut.

contoh-contoh nyata dari para pemimpin - pernyataan prabowo di debat capres pertama

Original Posted By johanjalil►moral bakal seirama dengan nalar

contoh, survey aja berapa persen orang berpendidikan rendah dan tinggi yg melakukan tindakan amoral?
berapa banyak orang cerdas yg buang sampah sembarangan, dibanding dengan orang yg ga pernah sekolah buang sampah sembarangan?
berapa banyak orang cerdas yg naik motor ugal-ugalan di banding dengan orang yg ga pernah sekolah yg ugal-ugalan?

gampang, kalo kita ketemu di jalan ada orang yg bertindak amoral, apa tanggapan kita? "ini orang pasti ga pernah sekolah". tepat memang seperti itu.

Jadi sangat tidak tepat kalo pendidikan moral itu sebagai kunci pembenahan karakter masyarakat.

persuasif kah "jangan buang sampah sembargan, tidak baik",

atau dengan ini: "jangan buang sampah sembarangan, karena sampah yg kita buang akan menyumbat saluran air dan mengakibatkan banjir. kok bisa tersumbat? jelaskan bla bla bla.

kunci nya apa? jelas ilmu pengetahuan. bukan pelajaran moral yg absurd. Ilmu pengetahuan lah yg menggerakkan nalar, sehingga bisa kontrol emosi, empati. dari situlah moral terbentuk. aristoteles pun pernah berkata: fungsi utama dari otak adalah mendinginkan hati yg panas.

Jadi anak yang cerdas dan berpendidikan akan memiliki moral yg relatif lebih baik, ketimbang anak yg kurang pandai dan kurang pendidikan.

Jepang, korea, singapore bukan berarti mereka di beri pendidikan moral yg jor joran. tapi anak anak disana memang memiliki kemampuan nalar jauh di atas anak indonesia.

monggo pajang page one gan

Original Posted By strongkid►Selama ini menurut ane sekolah uda cukup memberikan pelajaran yang baik tentang akhlak dan mental. Pelajaran PKN, Agama, peraturan sekolah yang sangat menjunjung tinggi adat ketimuran uda lebih dari cukup.
Faktor di luar sekolah kayak dimanakah tempat biasanya seorang anak itu bersosial, faktor didikan dan pengawasan orang tua, dan lingkungan di sekitar tempat tinggal yang paling banyak mempengaruhi perkembangan sifat, watak, akhlak, dan mental anak yang bersangkutan.



Di luar sana urusan kayak ginian malah bukan jadi urusan sekolahnya.

Original Posted By shurta►
bung orang ciuman,menikah, buat anak ga ada tuh yg ngajarin itu semua berjalan dgn sendirinya di dasarkan ilmu pengetahuan mereka.
degerin lgu iwan fals "Masalah moral, masalah akhlak, biar kami cari sendiri" inti nya apa akhlak moral itu bisa kita pelajari dari lingkungan sekitar sdngkan ilmu pengetahuan ga bisa sembarangan di dapet nya.

Original Posted By johanjalil►

nih gan, kurikulum di finlandia

1. Bahasa Ibu dan Sastra (Mother Tongue and Literature) : Dari kelas 1–9

2. Bahasa Asing 1: Biasanya Bahasa Inggris, diberikan dari Kelas 1–9

3. Bahasa Asing 2: Biasanya bahasa Latin, diberikan dari kelas 1-9

4. Matematika (Mathematics): Dari kelas 1–9

5. Pendidikan Lingkungan Alam (Environmental Studies): Dari kelas 1–4

6. Biologi (Biology): Dari kelas 5–9

7. Geografi (geography): Dari kelas 7–9

8. Fisika (Physiscs): Dari kelas 5–9

9. Kimia (Chemistry): Dari kelas 7–9

10. Pendidikan Kesehatan (Health Education): Kelas 7–9

11. Pelajaran Agama (Religion): Terdapat 2 pelajaran agama, yakni, Lutheran atau Orthodoks, dari kelas 1–9

12. Etika (Ethics): Kelas 1–9

13. Pelajaran Sejarah (History): Kelas 5–9

14. Pelajaran Sosial (Social Studies): Kelas 7–9

15. Musik (Music): Kelas 1–9

16. Seni Visual (Visual Arts): Kelas 1–9

17. Kerajinan Tangan (Crafts): Kelas 1–9

18. Pendidikan Olah Raga (Physical Education): Kelas 1–9

19. Kerumahtanggaan (Home Economics): Kelas 7–9

20. Bimbingan Belajar dan Keterampilan (Educational and Vocational Guidance): Kelas 1-9

sumber: http://fellypun.wordpress.com/lkpp/143-2/

Original Posted By sasoripras►hm...ane rada ga setuju kalo SD d kasih pengetahuan cuma 20%..
SD itu 6 tahun lho...belon lagi udah ada TK..menurut ane terlalu di sia-siakan kepintaran anak SD jika terlalu sedikit di isi pengetahuan..

menurut ane seh, mungkin ada sistem yg lebih akurat lagi,
misal, 20% pengetahuannya di kleas berapa, trus d kelas berapa di tingkatkan dan seterusnya..
karena menurut ane kebaikan itu emang seharusnya di ajarkan semenjak dari kecil..!

Original Posted By ra1nmak3r►

Yup gw rasa 80 % terlalu berlebihan. Seharusnya metode pengajaran yang semakin ditingkatkan serta lingkungan dan fasilitas sekolah.
Pendidikan karakter bisa melalui ekstar kurikuler karena lebih ke praktek dan penerapan kebiasaan

Original Posted By balqisya►idealnya sich kalo SD masih ke basis keilmuan .. prosentasenya mungkin 70 : 30 yang 70 adalah sains dan soshum dan 20% adalah akhlak .. baru nanti akan meningkat pada tahap berikutnya di jenjang yang lebih tinggi ,,, kalo 80 % emang sekolah mau kayak pondok semua gitu ?? udah ada jalurnya masing - masing ..

Original Posted By bonbenk►hahahha

karena joko yang ngomong, yang nggak masuk akal pun dibela penastak

holy shit, 80% diajarin agama sama PMP doang

Original Posted By agelgelgel►setau ane y gan
otak berkembang itu di usia tk sampe sd
jd cocok di masukin ilmu2
nah nnti d situ ketahuan ni anak jagonya di ilmu apa karena dari kecil uda d cas
contoh
kata dosen ane yg spesialis anak
pernah liat ga gan anak kecil bsa bget n cpet blajar bhs inggris
kenapa?
karena dari kecil di waktu otak mereka berkembang,sudah di masukin tntg bhs inggris dgn caara menyenangkan tentunya
otak anak masi bersih n bagus ntuk nyerap karena engga ada stress2an n masi dlm tahap perkembangan
dari kecil uda d didik menyerap ilmu nnti wktu besar untuk pinter jd kearah n sudah menjadi hobi yg namanya belajar
kalo masi kecil ga d isi ilmu dgn cara yg bener,,ntar uda gede males2n belajar