national examination

National Examination Scandal in Indonesia and the Ethical Solving Problem


Cheating might be a common phenomenon in students’ level. In Canada, 75 percent of university students confessed to cheat on written assignments while studying in high schools, while 53 percent of undergraduate and 35 percent of graduate students admitted for cheating when finishing their project. Cheating could be done through copying sentences without proper referencing, modifying bibliography, or using others’ paper without permission. In examination, students cheat by copying from other students, helping each other or using a piece of paper that already contains answers for the exam (Cooper, 2006).
However, “well-organised cheating” involving teachers, head-teachers, and local governments that happened in the previous national examinations really is a serious problem. It is not merely about getting a better mark to pass the exam anymore, but is a morality concern.
It is extremely dreadful when a group of ‘honourable people’ like teachers, head-teachers, and other educational related officers planned such a dirty thing. There must have been something very big causing this systemic cheating. Some people state that national examination’s burden is so hard and difficult for teachers and students to cope that they took ‘an alternative way’ by cheating. Some others argue that teachers do not work seriously for the exam because UAN is not consistent with the National Education System Act 2003 (Sisdiknas). More awfully, schools – head teachers, teachers and students, work “collaboratively” in the exam because it is permitted by the local government to boost “the quality” of students in the area. Therefore, three problems are identified in the national examination; organised cheating, the government’s inconsistency, and local governments’ ambition.
This paper is trying to give an idea to solve the problem of national examination in Indonesia using PAVE (Principles, Agreements, Virtues, and End Consequences) strategy. The identified problems will be viewed with the PAVE strategies proportionally. As a starting point, the writer suggests that the government may have to stop the implementation of National Examination and give teachers right to assess their own students. But all stakeholders involved in UAN should do further actions that are going to be explained in the paper.
Principles and Agreements Considerations
Viewed from any ideological, religious and moral values cheating is wrong. Cheating is similar to stealing, taking other belongings without permission. Cheating, then, is unacceptable whatever the reasons are. It is an act of ‘deceiving somebody, especially for personal advantage’ (Encarta, 2007). It means that cheating is not only about taking a personal advantage but at the same time harming others as well.
Giving help to others is morally acceptable. However, giving help to do bad things, such as cheating, is a different matter. It can also be categorized as cheating it self. What teachers did in helping students to answer the test in the national examination can not be categorised as a good thing, although it might give good impact to students and schools.
In Indonesia, guru (teacher) stands for digugu lan ditiru, which means to be trusted and followed. This has become the philosophy of agreement between a teacher and the students in Indonesia for several years. It means that as a teacher, one does not only teach the students to be competent in a particular knowledge and skill but, more importantly, to educate them to be a person that morally competent as well. A teacher must not tell a lie because his students will imitate him/her to tell a lie too. This philosophy implies that a teacher must give good examples to their students dealing with how to behave in a good manner.
In relation between government and schools, the department of national education should have understood the condition of each school in Indonesia. The gap between the quality of teaching in urban and rural areas is very wide. Many schools in rural area are not well equipped, while some schools in the city have luxurious teaching tools and infrastructures. Standardization, then, is impossible because of this wide inequality.
In section 58 point (a) of National Education System Act 2003 it is stated that “evaluation is conducted by the teacher to monitor the students’ on going achievement and progress”. The government does not have any privilege to evaluate the students. It is the teacher who has right to assess his/her students’ achievement. The inconsistency between the government policy about national examination and the Act shows that its implementation seems to be too early and not well-organised. In this case, besides breaking the rule, the government does not give respect to teachers’ right.

Virtues and End Consequences Considerations
Looking at virtues enable all actors involved in national examination to contemplate about what actually they are, what they should do and behave, and so on. Let us look what teachers, students, and governments should be or should behave in relation to the national examination problems.
Teachers are good guys. They speak and act academically and based on values applied in the school or society. They do not break the rule. They teach good things for the students. They never allow their students to cheat while doing assignments, projects or examinations. They can help when the students need their help. As good persons, they help to do good things.
Good teachers are always making sure that their students have fun in classroom. They involve them selves with the students to understand the way their students think and learn. Good teachers understand each of their student’s needs, learning style, capability, and potential difficulty. Good teachers, then, plan their teaching activities based on the class diversity.
Good students, on the other hand, always understand their teachers’ teaching style. They listen to the teachers’ explanation and pay attention. They try to keep in touch with their teachers, actively engage in learning process, respect the teachers, and always do their homework. They are willing to learn and work collaboratively with their class mates.
Good students have a good behaviour. They are not disruptive during the class, never come late, and obey the school rules. They never cheat while doing projects, assignment and examination. They do not help their friends in examination because it is not allowed. They help their classmates and teachers in good things.
In implementing new policy a good government involves citizens (O’brien, 2004). Without listening to the sound of grass root level, any policy that is constructed will not meet the people’s needs. Government is chosen and working for people. It is there to give the best service the society. More importantly, a good government will not break the rule although it has power to do so. A good purpose will become bad if it does not follow the rule.
In end consequences point of view, cheating, individually or collaboratively, could bring either good or bad impact for students, teachers, and schools. Those who are successful in cheating will surely get better mark and pass an examination. Their parents are happy, while the school also get pleasure from their students’ 100% graduation. But, at the same time they are unconsciously also building immoral attitude and behaviour inside their soul.
If students fail in cheating, they will fall at some other impacts. Firstly, they may fail the examination. Secondly, they will get embarrassed. Thirdly, those who are both successful and unsuccessful in cheating do not get the knowledge and skills they need to continue their future life because all marks they get in the school are not from their own effort. Students, as well as teachers and parents, spend a huge number of time and money for nothing.
If teachers and schools organize a systematic cheating for a long period of time, a liar generation may be created. Cheating will become a common habit for every one. This generation will continue to live cheatingly in the future. If they become a teacher, they will become bad teachers. If they become a president or a public bureaucrat, they will be corrupt.
What next?
After some cheating scandals are detected in the previous national examinations there is a crisis of belief from the society about the honesty of teachers, schools and some local governments.
The first thing teachers should do is changing their behaviour as fast as possible. They should stop doing bad things -like helping students to cheat. They have to try to convince the society and the department that they will not repeat the immoral actions in teaching and evaluating their students.
Actually, teachers have a long period of time (three years) to prepare their students in facing national examinations. Although three different teachers are usually provided by a school or government to teach the first, second and third grade, they must not work individually. The success of their students in passing the national examination depends upon all of them, not only on the third grade teacher. They, together, must have a grand plan to make students success in final examination since students for the first time put their footprint in the schools.
As a teacher, whatever the educational background -educational or non-educational, one should know how to evaluate their students. If they want the right of assessing their students back, they have to be able to create a valid test instrument. Some time when they already get their right, they will have to be responsible for the examination result, as well as for the instrument they construct. They have to show the society that the way they evaluate their students is valid and reliable. If they feel they are not good in this area, they have to start learning about it.
Teachers should also realise that they are working with unique creatures. It is impossible to make them clever in a very short time. And it is not easy managing many students with different characteristics. So, teachers need to have a strong dedication towards their profession.
Besides making them competence in some knowledge and skills, teachers should also make them morally competent. Life is not merely about mathematics, statistics or economics. Students will some day explore the world and meet many people from several backgrounds. Their moral competence will certainly become their guardian in getting in touch with others.
National Education System Act 2003 asserts that the department of national education does not have any privilege to assess the students. It is only teachers, who have the right to evaluate their own students because teachers understand their students more than any others, including the department of national education. So, the government should stop national examination program. The government should give back the right of evaluation and assessment to teachers.
However, it is currently still impossible to totally and immediately give this privilege to all teachers or schools. Considering that cheating, as a moral concern, has become a “habit” in every national examination, giving teachers or schools such freedom is still risky. They might again go into other wrong directions. Without sufficient control, schools may let the students pass the exam because they pay, for example.
Before entirely giving teachers the right to evaluate their students there must be a transitional phase. In this stage, the department of national education give schools freedom to choose between two options; conducting an independent final examination or using the national examination package provided by the government. Those that are ready to conduct their own final examination, because of human resource readiness for example, can choose to carry out the examination independently. Those that are not ready yet, may use the government version of test.
To make sure that the independent examination meets the curriculum requirements and there is no more cheating during the implementations the government should provide an objective supervision. Besides supervising the examination, the government through the department of national education and its technical institutions may have to evaluate every final examination conducted by the schools. This is to make sure that the examination contents are appropriate with the curriculum standards. However, supervising the whole learning process in each grade will give better result rather than supervising only the examination.
As not all schools are ready to conduct their own final examination, it is the duty of the department of national education to provide training in test instrument construction. In Indonesia there are many teachers that do not have teaching background. They learnt pure social or physical sciences while going to university. In other words, they did not learn how to teach, how to deal with pupils and how to construct a valid test instrument. The government should pay extra attention to this type of teachers by giving sufficient training.
After all schools in Indonesia are ready to conduct their own examination, the department can stop producing the national examination instrument. The government may still provide the standard of competence but not in the form of ‘deadly passing grade’ like those applied in the previous examinations. It would be better if the standard is in the form of ‘lists of knowledge and skills’. The standard should not only consider cognitive aspect but affective and psychomotor as well.
Some local governments are reported to take part in organising cheating for national examination. While they felt responsible to ‘the quality’ of students in their area, they seemed to misinterpret the word ‘quality’. They thought about quality statistically -the more students pass, the more qualified they are. Because of their misconception, they forced schools and teachers in their area to boost “students’ success” statistically. Finally, they trapped into a morality pitfall.
If a local government think that students’ quality is important to promote their potential, for example, they should firstly identify what quality is, how to get it and how much to spend to create schools that can produce good quality human resources. They, of course, must learn from the experts what quality is. Knowing well about quality will give them guidance to provide good education infrastructures in their area. They will understand what schools, teachers, and students need in teaching and learning. After they have given the schools everything they need, the local governments deserve to ask for good quality outputs.
Finally, principles consideration, agreements between stakeholders in national examination, virtues point of view and end consequences considerations imply that to solve the national examination problem, teachers or schools, the governments, and students should change their role and behaviour. Teachers should try to become a good learning facilitator as well as a true guru (can be trusted and followed) so that students can get both academic and moral competences. Teachers should convince the society and the government that they are trustable profiles, honest, and can teach and assess their students objectively and professionally. The government should give teachers the privilege to evaluate their students, and at the same time provide supports and trainings, and objective evaluation and supervision. If local governments want to get benefit from schools in their area, they have to understand the students, teachers, and schools’ needs. They must be able to assist the schools in producing good quality outputs.

References

CAHYA, M. (2007) UN, Hati-hati Pilihan Jawaban yang Menjebak (Be Careful of Pitfalls in National Examination). Pikiran Rakyat On Line.
COOPER, R. (2006) Cheating a Big Problem, Study Finds. Guelph, Ontario, Canada, University of Guelph.
ELEARNINGEUROPA (2005) The New Learning Paradigm in School Education. http://www.elearningeuropa.info/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=5947&doclng=6&menuzone=1.
ELKIND, D. (2004) The Problem with Constructivism. The Educational Forum, 68, 306-312.
HUITT, W. (2003) Constructivism. Educational psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA, Valdosta State University.
IRAWAN, A. (2007) Kontroversi Ujian Nasional (National Examination Controverials). Jakarta, Indonesian Corruption Watch.
JEWELL, P. W., P & HENDERSON, L & DODD, J & PATERSON, S & MCLAUGHLIN, J (n.d.) Care, Think and Choose: A Curriculum Based Approach to Teaching Ethics Adelaide.
KHUMAINI, A. (2007) Air Mata Guru Minta DPR Selamatkan Anak bangsa (Teachers Tears Ask the House of Representatives to Save Children of the Nation). Jakarta, Kompas Cyber Media.
KOMPAS (2007) Air Mata Guru Bongkar Kecurangan UN Medan: Kecurangan UN SMP dan SMA Direncanakan Secara Sistematis (Teachers Tears Proofed UN Dishonesties in Medan: Cheatings were Systematically Planned). Jakarta, Kompas Cyber Media.
METROTVNEWS.COM (2007) Terdapat 37 Kasus Kecurangan UAN (37 Dishonesties were Noted During National Examination). Jakarta, MetroTVNews.com.
MICROSOFT (2007) Encarta Dictionaries. Microsoft Encarta 2007.
O’BRIEN, S. B., G (2004) A New Era in Governmental Reform: Realizing Community. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 4, 205-219.
SUPARMAN (2007) Belajar Bijak dari Kasus UN (Learning to be Wise from National Examination Cases). Jakarta, Kompas Cyber Media.
WULANDARI, A. (2007) Petuah Ki Hajar Dewantara