Firstly, allow me to explain why I am interested in writing about "How to Improve the Educational System of My Country, Indonesia." I have several valid reasons.

When I completed my studies at the University of Krisnadwipayana in Jakarta, I obtained employment at the Ministry of Education and Culture, also located in our country's capital city, Jakarta. My position was very demanding, with considerable responsibility, and I always tried to perform as competently as I could. My most valuable asset consisted of a positive attitude.

I was happy with my employment, of course, but I was not deeply satisfied with what I personally experienced in the field, and I realized that there was room for improvement in the Ministry.

In fact, I was able to identify certain problems with Indonesia's educational system and I was determined to resolve these deficiencies.

It is important to realize that the Indonesian Government fully intended to improve the educational system of our country. Their large-scale plans encompassed the entire nation.

Indeed, in the last two decades, many new classrooms have been built. Moreover, improvements have also been made to school facilities, including updating of science laboratories and related equipment, in the nation's private and public schools. These physical changes have also been accompanied by major changes in the Science Curriculum. In fact, although much modernization remains to be accomplished, the 1968 Science Curriculum has been replaced by a Complete Science Syllabus dating from 1975, with content material extending into the 1980s.

In 1984, additional Curriculum changes took place in the Senior Secondary Schools of Indonesia. However, given the rapid pace of development, (1) the supporting administrative systems and (2) the actual teaching skills of faculty members did not always have time to develop appropriately.

Obviously, teachers are a crucial factor in the educational process. Therefore, an attempt to improve the quality of teaching was initiated. The newly-oriented curriculum material had to be assimilated by members of the teaching staff throughout our country; therefore, a Government Program, taking the form of in-service training sessions, was initiated. We called it "Pemantapan Kerja Guru" (PKG), or "The Teacher Training Center." Cognitive Processing Skills were emphasized, and two-way communication, i.e. teaching-learning, formed the theoretical nucleus of the program.

This major initiative was developed by the Department of Education and Culture in Indonesia. The Government anticipated that teachers would desire to improve themselves and teach more effectively. At present, most teachers still employ traditional teaching methods: chalk and talk.

However, the new system, called, firstly, for teachers to be immersed in SPKG/LKG methodology. Under this program, Key Teachers or Core Teachers would train others. Secondly, LKGI sessions would be organized to train instructors. Lastly, the LKI/LKIB training, held at the national level, involved training by Development Instructors, as well as by Consultants and Teams of Educational Specialists.

Following completion of the PKG Program, teachers would develop a wide variety of abilities and methodologies, effectively utilizing strategies such as simulation, discussion, demonstration, games, experiments, and field trips.

This contemporary approach, promoted by the Government, involved quite a bit of practical work, as well. Among other tactics, "work sheets" and evaluation forms were formulated to determine how students and teachers perceived the new system.

In its first year of service, PKG was uniquely implemented with respect to innovative teaching of Science, or "IPA" subjects, at the Junior High and High School Levels. Whereas, at the present time, PKG teaching methodologies have been applied to an impressively wide range of subjects, levels and geographic regions, throughout the entire country. Currently, PKG has expanded its coverage to include an expansive array of subjects, such as Mathematics, English, Indonesian Language, Accounting, and Senior High Geography. This phenomenon can be properly considered a valid indicator of PKG success, although it should be borne in mind that not every subject-area has been affected by this latest pedagogical approach.

Yet another indicator of PKG's success is worthy of our consideration. In the first year of its operation, PKG was established in only three of Indonesia's twenty-seven Provinces.

Today, every Province has its own PKG program, filtering down to regions and localities. This program has been successfully initiated at the Kabupaten/Kotamadya levels. In these areas, it is known under another name: SPKG, (Sanggar Pemantapan Kerja Guru, or "Place for Teacher Training"). It is useful to bear in mind that junior and senior high schools are primarily located in townships and sub-provincial sectors, where the success of PKG methodologies has been noted on a wide scale. Indeed, this contemporary innovation in Indonesian education has served its purpose well.

The SPKGs, referred to above, were modified, in later phases, to include three models, labelled A, B, and C. This new structuring was designed particularly to serve the varied needs and circumstances of the target population. In order to effectively develop these programs, of course, the basic concept and principles of PKG had to be well understood and recognized by those responsible for the expanded models. These modifications, all of which were objectively designed, stemmed from actual on-site, field conditions. Nonetheless, I feel that it is essential to determine to what degree, and at what levels of quality, these PKGs and SPKGs have performed. This enquiry is put forward simply because growth in number does not always correlate with the maintenance of either quality or performance within a given program or institution, in relation to its goal or objective.

In my opinion, it is indispensable to conduct further evaluations of PKG and SPKG "performance quotients", thus ensuring that resultant data are best utilized to further develop the institution along efficient lines.

This requirement is all the more important in that there is a vital need to update these programs to reflect post-1994 curriculum criteria and standards, thus solving the "lag" problem. Evaluation and analysis of the 1984 -1994 period is essential, of course, to ensure that the PKGs and SPKGs of the late 1990s are successful.

Further, results of all analyses and evaluations should point to those aspects of PKG and SPKG curriculum programs which require strengthening, so as to better support newly implemented course-content. Proper identification of problems during the early years of Indonesia's PKGs could lead to elimination of weaknesses and foster on-going success, insofar as possible.

The Directorate of General Secondary Education, my former office in Indonesia, requires such evaluations periodically to ensure excellence. In fact, the DGSE is currently designing and plans to implement a new "breed" of PKG and SPKG in the months ahead. It will focus on supporting contemporary curriculum implementation in rural and isolated areas, through the use of "Model C" structuring. Under the circumstances, the Government requires data and information from previous PKGs and SPKGs. I am absolutely in favor of the DGSE's modernization of education in remote sections of my country and look forward to even greater success in Indonesian Education through implementation of 1994-1995 curriculum standards.