The National Curriculum of Indonesia and its changes
In the course of history since 1945 (Independence Year), the national curriculum of Indonesia had undergone change several times, namely in 1947, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1975, 1984, 1994, 2004 and the latest curriculum of KTSP 2006 (best understood as School Based Currriculum), those amendments are logically consequences of political issue, government system, social cultural, economic, science and technology change in the living of state community (Soekisno, 2007,). Therefore, the curriculum as a set of educational plans should be developed dynamically in accordance with the demands and changes that occur in society. All Indonesia’s national curricula were designed based on the same foundation, namely Pancasila (Philosophical foundation of the Indonesian Republic) and the 1945 constitution; the principal differences among those curriculums were only on emphasizing of educational goals and approaches to realize it.
Continuing to improve the quality of education in order commensurate with other developing countries, the Indonesian government has made various changes, and continues to review the implementation of education in Indonesia. The National Education Standards of Indonesia (BSNP) had regulated through Government Regulation (PP) No. 19 Year 2005 and set eight contents of the Standards of Education, specifically Content Standard, Standard Process, Graduates Competency Standards, Educators Standards and Education Workforce, Infrastructure Standards , Management Standards, Financial Standards and Evaluation Standards.
Simultaneously the Government Regulation No.19 year 2005 affected the direction of Indonesian curriculum development policies to implement its Content Standard (SK) and Graduate Competency Standard (SKL) as established through the Regulation of The Minister of National Education: Number 22, 23, 24 year 2006. These three regulations then further elaborated “KTSP” (School Based Curriculum) which is built and developed by each educational unit or school in Indonesia.
According to Azumardi Azra (2006), explained that the changes in education in Indonesia means that there are two new paradigms emerged in education, shifting the orientation of the policy where previously being centralized to decentralized, then national education is more oriented to the learning process rather than results. Decentralized system means to implement the new breakthrough School-Based Curriculum known as KTSP in Indonesia.
Change of curriculum had affected the national education system of Indonesia; it had not only affected the learning climate in the classroom, but the readiness of the principal and subject teachers in efforts to understand and apply the curriculum in practice. In addition, Sutrisno and Nuryanto (2008) viewed that the implementation has not been optimally practiced as educational practitioners think KTSP differs with KBK. Meanwhile Suhadi (2006) argued that such an assumption was due to a prior attitudes and psychological resistance against the changes. The changes enhanced the operational practice of curriculum which are developed and implemented by each school consisting of their own respective goals, local content perspectives, educational calendar and syllabus.
KTSP which was being mandated by the Ministry of National Education Indonesia (MoNE) through The National Education Standard Institution (BSNP) means to reinforce the implementation of its predecessor (read: KBK), it implies that KTSP still put pressure on developing students competencies. According to Fasli and Bachruddin (2007) said that KTSP implementation will not be undergoing a public test, because this curriculum had been tested through KBK which was being applied by several schools in a pilot project before the birth of KTSP. This is then a following-up toward curriculum change in the context of regional autonomy and decentralization of education programmed by the government of Indonesia. The implementation of this curriculum is focused on three dimensions of student’s enrichment of knowledge (cognitive), attitude formation (affective) and behavior (psychomotor).
Under KTSP the school and teacher have the authority to decide the educational goals based on their own schools perspective, in other words, teacher have duties on: (1) constructing and formulating the proper goal, (2) choosing and constructing the right lesson material according to the needs, interest and children’s development phase, (3) using various methods and teaching media, (4) and constructing the program and the right evaluation. A curriculum should be made systematically and detail, which will help the teachers in its implementation.
However, KTSP faces major challenges related to integration of local information, national, and international. Combining these integrations may only be solved by having resources which are prepared ahead of time, not by the teachers who prepared instantly through a variety of curriculum development assistance programs. It is more dangerous if the schools eventually just offered cheat or trace the guidelines offered by National Education Standard (BSNP). If so, KTSP will create the instant schools and result in stunted creativity, contrary to the mandate of the KTSP.
Some of the reasons behind the needs for this research include (a) KTSP implementation needs to be evaluated simultaneously in qualitative and quantitative terms; and (b) the results of that evaluation can be made as the basic information for all policy decisions related to educational elements in Riau Province especially at Indragiri Hilir Regency.
However, having been launched on 2006, there were many issues discussed by experts and parties whose responsible for education, particularly in the implementation of School Based Curriculum (KTSP) which has inadequate human resources whose capable to interpret even elaborate it into the practice of educational unit , incompleteness of the supporting facilities of its implementation, the teachers do not understand KTSP as a whole, both in terms of concept and its implementation in schools and even still busy using the previous theory in the process of teaching and learning in classroom.
In accordance with the principal of KTSP, all levels and types of education in Indonesia must develop their own curriculum based on their potential areas and students. This is supported by Minister of National Education Regulation No. 22 of 2006 on the Content Standards, as well as Minister of National Education Regulation No. 23 of 2006 on Graduates Competency Standards (SKL); these regulations mandate to the schools in order being required to prepare their own curriculum. However, this policy is not accompanied by teachers’ readiness or even understanding. These generate confusion among them while applying the KTSP.
As informed by Curriculum Center 2010, the monitoring noticed the implementation of KTSP has been conducted mostly in large areas, although majority of them still adopting from existing model of curriculum. Hopefully, with technical assistances undertaken by various parties will ensure the success of its development and help improve understanding of the concept and philosophy, and encourage them to develop the curriculum based on their respective conditions.
Various obstacles occurred during realizing the empowerment of schools and KTSP. First, lack of ability is the main construct, developing of staffs members’ capabilities while providing technical assistance to particular regions could lead them to learn by doing. The instability of funding for the dissemination and socialization of KTSP causes the Curriculum Center to experience substantial cost-cutting measures; it impacts the perfect planning that has been initially organized became severely hampered in its implementation and also creates distrust between local education authorities and Curriculum Center. But the best spirit in welcoming this new curriculum to be highly efficacious for the Curriculum Center to do the best in accordance with the appropriate quality needs, potentials and regional particularities.
Therefore, any problems arise due to the implementation of KTSP supposed to comprise more serious concern of Indonesian Government, especially Indonesian Ministry of National Education. The aspects to be considered include the following:
Improving teacher’s quality and understanding toward relevant concepts of KTSP implementation.
Providing such of facilities and infrastructure that can support the successful of KTSP implementation.
Simultaneously help every educational unit in developing KTSP.
Evaluating its process at provincial level to local district and regions.
Whatever the responses from the concerning person/social in regard to the implementation of KTSP, school and teacher are the central to implement this school based curriculum; they themselves have the potential to overcome any weaknesses occurring, if not it will be in vain.
As suggested by Nana (2001) no matter on how good the curriculum, the results are highly dependent on what is being done by teachers and pupils in the classroom. It means the success of education through curriculum reformation will ultimately be determined by the teacher as an executor of the curriculum, and school as a learning provider.
This study aims to see how the implementation of School-Based Curriculum (KTSP) is carried out in Junior High Schools and Senior High Schools as well as Madrasah at Riau province Indonesia. Specifically it will be conducted in one part of Riau Province namely Indragiri Hilir Regency. Particularly the objective of this study is to assess the status of KTSP implementation in the dimensions of context, input, process and product (CIPP model by Daniel Stufflebeam).
To figure out the extent to which KTSP has been implemented in High Schools and Madrasah
To investigate the complexities of its implementation during 4 years running
To find out the supporting facilities provided by national and local government in its implementation
Overall purpose of this study is to see the implementation of the KTSP in terms of context, input, process and product.
Significance of the Study
The result of this study will give some of practical benefits as follows:
The policy recommendations to Indonesian Ministry of Education (especially for Indragiri Hilir Ministry of Education) based on the objectives data that will be resulted at the end of the study.
Information to the public (stakeholder and parents)
For basic development of relevant curriculum materials accordance with local potentials and teacher competency standard.
As reference to the theoretical basis for the development of KTSP paradigm based on schools potential needs on respect to its planning, implementation, and evaluation.
In overall objectives, this study will formulate the research questions based on the evaluation model of curriculum developed by Stufflebeam (1972); those are Context, Input, Process and Product. Thus the research questions are formulated as the following:
Dimension of Context
How do the English teachers at Indragiri Hilir Regency develop their own curriculum based on schools’ desires, student’s needs and local needs?
How do they implement and integrate all aspects of KTSP into their lesson plan and teaching?
Dimension of Input
How does the Indragiri Hilir Education Ministry assist the schools in developing their teachers’ capability in implementing KTSP?
Dimension of Process
How is the implementation of KTSP in Junior High School, Senior High Schools and Madrasah at Indragiri Hilir Regency Riau?
How do they (Schools and teachers) evaluate its implementation?
Dimension of Product
How are the results of KTSP implementation?
What is the effect of KTSP implementation on students’ competence in English (Impact of teachers’ creativities in designing their own curriculum development)
As the latest curriculum on 2006 which is derived from KBK (CBC-Competence-Based Curriculum, 2004), KTSP becomes a new breakthrough in the history of Indonesian education curriculum, which to progress its development to down-top approach. Contextually, KTSP develop by any groups or committees of the education unit or school/madrasah those under coordination and supervision of the National Indonesian Education Ministry and Local Indonesian Education Ministry. It emphasizes on developing the ability to perform competences and tasks with specific standards, so the results affect the students on mastery of a set of specific knowledge competencies, and values used in many fields of life. Indeed, KTSP is the curriculum that reflects the knowledge, skills and attitudes and also refers to the concept of education in turning to improve students' potentialities.
Moreover, according to historical records, following the independence of the Republic of Indonesia, the Dutch language was replaced by English as the first foreign language, and has been recognized as such in Indonesia since 1955 (Alisjabana, 1976; de Han, 2003 as cited in Mochtar Marhum, n.d.). Since the 1980s, English has been considered to be the most important foreign language in Indonesia. The government’s and community’s interest in English has been growing since the early 1990s (Alwasilah, 1997). This position of English can be traced from government documents on the results of Parliament’s meetings. In the GBHN (The Guidelines of the State Policy) 1983 and 1988, foreign language policy was not incorporated. However, in the GBHN 1993, the policy on foreign languages, particularly English, was clearly stipulated. The policy related to the use and mastery of English. In 1988, Government Regulation No. 55, 56 and 57/1988 changing Government Regulation No. 28, 29/990 was introduced. It confirmed the use of English in schools. Moreover, Government Regulation of No 57/1957/1988 confirmed the use of English as a foreign language and as a means of communication in the university. Subsequently, it was incorporated into Government Regulation No 60/1999 on the use of English in all higher education. Alwasilah (1997) suggested that “the need for mastery of English in the globalization era was absolutely necessary. In addition, it would be ideal if the mastery of English became the mastery of second language” (p. 89). Yet, the uniqueness of this KTSP hopefully brings the new education model to the success of Indonesian education.
The development of a KTSP is a new phenomenon for the school community in Indonesia, consequently, in the early stage of its implementation some obstacles were found in a number of schools. The freedom of schools to create their own curriculum which is relevant with the needs of students cannot be fully implemented (Harry & Burhanudin, 2008). The general model of it which is being developed as a model and fully adopted by a number of schools has tended to cause a similar curriculum among schools as to what was being implemented in the centralistic era. The change in the role of schools from curriculum implementer to curriculum developer has made the school community confused. The capacity of school community to analyze the conditions and needs of the students and implement them in school curriculum needs to be further improved. Therefore, school assistance through professional development programs provided for the head teachers and teachers in the context of this kind of school based curriculum is still considered important for several years to come. In line with the school assistance, capacity building of the educational management in autonomous regions (regency/municipality) managing the curriculum development still remains to be completed
A number of studies have been carried out to investigate KTSP implementation; a study conducted in 2008 in Jambi province of Indonesia revealed (Sutrisno & Nuryanto, 2008) that “KTSP to all levels (Elementary Schools, Junior and Senior High Schools) having less applicable in term of (a) KTSP developmental preparation, (b) syllabus development, (c) teachers’ self development, (d) integrated learning, (e) local content development, (f) outcomes assessment, and (g) report process” (p. 27).
As such the issue above, implementation in this context leads to the true readiness of Jambi province in anticipating of changes toward educational paradigm from a previously centralized to decentralized model. For example, KTSP which was launched in late 2006 gave more emphasis on school autonomy through developing their own curriculum according to local needs and wisdom. This means Indonesian curricula is no longer centralized nationally and it is mandated under Indonesian Regulation No. 22 legislated in 1999 by the republic of Indonesia (R.I). Regarding local government, decentralization implies that the authority to implement and manage education shall be transferred from the national government to local districts or municipal government levels. At this point Sutrisno and Nuryanto (1998) also asserted that the teachers’ rules as facilitator in KTSP elements have not been working as the schools and committees’ expectations.
Furthermore, on different angle was reported as in the following:
The real condition shows that the paradigm shift is not necessarily accompanied by better result. A number of problems still advance in Jambi while on level of provinces, cities and countries. First, not all sectors which are directed to educational policy have human resources competent to formulate the technical policy and its implementation. Second, the increasingly of dominant political intervention in determining of policy and implementation, contextually in line with the trend of autonomy, bureaucratic chain is very closely possible to having dominantly power to education. (Sutrisno & Nuryanto, 1998 p. 24).
In a sense, it is important to consider the argument rose on where the KTSP developed, Endo viewed from this perspective that KTSP is similar to the concept of School-Based Curriculum Development (SBCD) in Australia which had begun to set on the mid-1970s, the discourse was in essence of giving more freedom in determining the curricula by the schools members (Endo, 1997). SBCD has several characteristics that are generally similar to SBC development in Indonesia, proved on through the participation of teachers, participation of the whole or part of school staffs; range of activities including selection (choice of a number of alternative curriculum), adaptation (modification of existing curriculum), and creation (designing a new curriculum); responsibilities transformation from centralist to decentralist (not terminating of responsibilities) and a continuation process among the community and stake-holders (to assist teachers and schools).
Other studies have indicated, however, Indonesian KTSP is not derived from SBCD in Australia. Wachyu (2009) argued KTSP is having the differentials factors from SBCD in Australia, KTSP is an integrated curriculum combining between the Top-Down and Bottom-Up approach that was being confirmed in USPN (Legislation of Indonesian National Education Standard) on chapter X, article 36 and 37. USPN revealed that Indonesian curriculum development is based on National Education Standard (SNP) and considerately pay attention on learners’ potential diversities, schools diversities and local needs. Chapter 38 also states that the structure and framework of the curriculum of primary and secondary schools are determined by the government. Therefore, KTSP was divided into core (subjects tested nationally) and local subjects that are developed by each educational unit based on the assessment of its potential, including the content to develop learner’s personality and potential based on his interest in the form of extra-curricular activities.
While SBCD in Australia tend to apply bottom-up approach, the entire process and the stages of curriculum based on the potential school. As confirmed by Skillbeck (1991) that “School based curriculum is a process when some or all members of a school take part on planning, implementation, and evaluation on the aspects or elements of the curriculum” (Sklill beck, 1991, as cited in Wachyu, 2009, p. 2).
Decentralized curriculum; such of designing, implementing and controlling (evaluation and improvement) carried out through locally by each educational unit, teachers who design its curriculum working together with experts, schools committee/madrasah and others part of society. KTSP development could include all components of the curriculum or some only, instead of compilation can be done by a group or all teachers with regard to the needs of each school in accordance with the conditions in each educational unit or its surrounding communities. KTSP will be more meaningful because of the different situations in a certain local condition that lead to the fulfillment of needs, demands and local development. It will produce a variety of design but is easier to understand, master and implement by teachers by virtue of their involvement in expanding KTSP.
Particularly the center of curriculum by Indonesian Education Ministry (2007) has pointed out also the advantages and its shortcomings, the advantages are taking on (a) KTSP is accordance with the needs, conditions, and on diversities which every local communities have, auto assist in developing society, (b) easier to carry out due to the designs that have been prepared by teachers considering the local factors that really support to develop. Instead, it has also several shortcomings, (a) not all teachers have the expertise or skills in curriculum development then, not every local schools have the teachers or an expert that proficiently in developing such of it, (b) with content being localized, the graduate can have lack of ability to participate in national competitiveness, (c) various designs that lead to the complexity of monitoring and evaluating in term of national learning outcomes, (d) transferring students from certain schools to another schools can cause difficulties (Center for the Development of Curriculum, 2007).
Recent reports have noted, 60 English teachers from junior and senior high schools spread of 24 regencies and cities in West Java Indonesia were being selected, most teachers who participated in this study had trained and socialized about KTSP (Wachyu Sundayana, 2009). Wachyu explored the research questions on (a) How are English teacher’s understanding about KTSP, (b) How are their perceptions on the development of KTSP, (c) What complexities were raising during implementing and developing its curriculum. This study showed the development of KTSP in every unit of education especially junior high schools and MTs (Madrasah) in West Java is still not in line with the stages of development as suggested in the guidelines of BSNP (Institution of National Education Standard).
Data collection showed most teachers (74%) know what KTSP was, but they were not clear to what function they have in practice, implement and develop KTSP; for the same reason Faizah and Ismono investigated the readiness of chemistry teachers in Bangkalan district of Madura and found that Chemistry teachers from five schools were not ready to apply, the percentage just reached on 60% (Faizah & Ismono, 2008, as cited in Yuli Eko Siswono, n.d).
Simultaneously with the finding of Wachyu Sundayana study, the complexities on its implementation concluded as follows: (a) lack of supporting facilities of the schools, (b) incompleteness of KTSP guidance received by teachers, (c) KTSP guideline was not detailed and clear, (d) teachers’ understanding on KTSP documents. These data are consistent with the finding of research conducted by Miftahul Jannah (2008) showing teachers’ abilities are low in developing syllabus and lesson plan; most of respondents (75%) stated about their inabilities in developing syllabus but just copying and duplicating the examples from BSNP without having a preliminary investigation throughout students potentials and schools needs. Most of interviewing respondents admit to their complexities in making a good syllabus and lesson plan lines with the students and schools needs. This fact showed that teachers having many difficulties in developing varieties stages on KTSP (Miftahul Jannah, 2008, as cited in Wachyu Sundayana, 2009. p. 7).
Regarding Riau province, whole schools on current educational year 2009/2010 are progressing to adapt KTSP, such socialization have always done, it felt as complexity because the entire process of transforming from being centralize to decentralized was not much understand by some teachers, referring to the function of teachers on KTSP, teachers are together with schools members to develop KTSP based on students’ potential and local needs (UUD No. 20 year 2003/article 37).
In fact, it is of utmost importance to examine what we could learn from prior and present efforts to bring about the strategies that are currently progressed by BSNP to help every educational unit in developing its curriculum.
Harianti (2008) explained although the authority of national curriculum development has changed, it is not making a sense for curriculum center to lose their jobs, the task change progressively to assist schools to prepare their own respective curricula. Furthermore, Harianti pointed out the job responsibility does not seem to be easy where there are a large number of schools in Indonesia contains 43.461 (elementary schools), 12.731 (junior high schools), 4.499 (senior high school) and 2.655 (vocational high schools), yet, not including Early Childhood education, Extraordinary Schools and Madrasah (Harianti, 2008). It does not allow for curriculum center helps one by one, there should be a strategy then schools can develop their own curricula. The expectation is that they can develop a curriculum, becoming true backbone in improving local human resources through education in national or even in international competitiveness.
Empowering the schools and community in developing KTSP done through a technical assistance, both at the provincial level as well as at the level of district/city, at the provincial level expected to present a TPK (Curriculum Development Team) whose responsibility to provide the information and give assistance on the development of KTSP to TPK at the district level. Empowering at the provincial level such as Riau is concentrated in the area of curriculum development till the teams performing evaluation and monitoring its implementation based on their own respective regions, beside at the district level is concentrated on the ability of the team to perform in school curriculum development assistance.
KTSP where commonly known as school based curriculum gone to be discussed for a long, the broad study of Marsh Collin (1990) on their final finding of School based curriculum development had suggested through sub of specifics SBCD issues:
“The key actors involved in political decisions about schooling in their respective countries tend to use several terms to describe or promote their efforts. Such term include ‘quality of schooling’, ‘school-improvement’, ‘school-focused improvement’, self-managing school’, and many others. Be that as it may, there are a number of interesting issues about SBCD and (its synonyms) which are currently of considerable interest and are likely to remain so in the immediate future”. They include:
The role of parents and students in decision making
Financial management by schools
Professional development for teachers
Pressure of tightening central control
(Marsh Colin, 1990, pp. 206-207)
The Curriculum center in its official website released about the uniqueness of KTSP implementation in term of diversity of schools needs, although the two junior high schools are located in the adjacent neighborhood both were very much different in term of pupils’ conditions. The A school whose current learners come from upper and middle class of socio-economic level had high academic achievement; all of them want to continue on to university. On the other hand, the B school where the majority of learners come from disadvantaged of socio-economic groups planned to graduate soon and earning money is a primary goal of schooling. Both of these two schools will develop a very different curriculum. School A will focus on studies with higher order thinking that enables learners to have high academic thinking in leading them to continue university, while school B will enrich the subjects with several activities that cultivate the skills to work so that learners feel a sense of great beneficial skills after graduating from school B.
Many researchers have investigated KTSP, Specifically on its implementation, based on the reviewing above some researchers had focused on the effectiveness on its evaluation based on the real phenomenon which occurred in the real situation of the schools, the writer although cannot find the way of their investigation by using several methods of curriculum evaluation models, where known on several studies like Glatthorn Allan, Floyd & Bruce (2006) studied in their books that curriculum evaluation should be concerned with assessing the value of a program studies, a field of studies, and a course of study, furthermore, they argued of all these three levels of curriculum work are important. Hereafter, the evaluation models of curriculum as best known are practical such as: Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model, Stufflebeam’s Context-Input-Process-Product Model, Scriven’s Goal-Free Model, Stake’s Responsive Model and Eisner’s Connoisseurship Model (Glatthorn, Floyd & Bruce, 2006 pp. 302-306).
For further study, the writer will focus on the evaluation model developed by Stufflebeam’s on Context-Input-Process-Product Model 1971. The context-input-process-product (abbreviated as CIPP) model, has several attractive features, namely: its emphasis on decision making seems appropriate for administrators concerned with improving curricula, its concern for the formative evaluation remedies. However the CIPP model has some associated drawbacks; its main weaknesses seems to be its failure to recognize the complexity of the decision making process in organizations. It assumes more rationality than exists in such situations and ignores the political factors that play a large part in these decisions (Glatthorn et al., 2006).
Definition of the Terms
Several operational definitions used by the researcher to conduct and focus on this study are as follows:
“The original derivation of the word curriculum is from the Latin verb currere, “to run”; curriculum, a diminutive form, came to mean a “racing chariot” or “race track” (David Pratt, 1994, p. 5).
Curriculum also can be defined as prescriptive, descriptive, or both. Ellis explained that “Prescriptive definitions provide us with what ‘ought’ to happen, and they more often than not to take the form of plan, an intended program, or some kind of expert opinion about what needs to take place in the course of study” (Glatthorn et al., 2006, pp . 3-5).
According to the Indonesian Institution of National Education Standards (2006) curriculum is “a set of plans and rules about the goals, content, teaching materials, and the methods used to guide the implementation of instructional activities on achieving certain educational goals, its certain goals include the national education goals in accordance with the local potential needs, education unit and learners” (p. 5).
Another term that could be used to define the descriptive curriculum is experience. The experience curriculum provides “glimpses” of the curriculum in action (Glatthorn et al., 2006, p. 5). Alan through his book had also compiled several examples of descriptive definitions of curriculum from various experts, as listed on the following:
All the experiences children have under the guidance of teachers (Hollis Caswell & Doak Campbell, 1935)
Those learning each child selects, accepts, and incorporates into himself to act with, on, and upon, in subsequent experiences (Thomas Hopkins, 1941)
All experiences of the child for which the schools accepts responsibility (Ragan, 1960)
The set of actual experiences and perceptions of the experiences that each individual learner has of his or her program of education (Glenn Hass, 1987)
The reconstruction of knowledge and experience that enables the learner to grow in exercising intelligent control of subsequent knowledge and experience (Daniel Tanner & Laurel Tanner, 1995).
(Glatthorn et al., 2006, p . 5)
Glatthorn et al. (2006) also summarized the definition “curriculum as the plans made for guiding learning in the schools, usually represented in retrievable documents of several levels of generality, and the actualization of those plans in the classroom, as experienced by the learners and as recorded by an observer; those experiences take place in a learning environment that also influences what is learned” (p. 5).
For the purpose of this study, curriculum is operationally referred as the curriculum which is mandated by Indonesian Ministry of Education (MoNE) namely “Kurikulum Satuan Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP)” or best initialized as School Based Curriculum.
KTSP or School Based Curriculum
Since 2006, when Law Number 20 Year 2003 on the National Education System was implemented, the centralized curriculum is gradually being changed into the school based curriculum which is decentralized to the school level. In the previous curriculum, the objectives, contents, learning methods, and assessment techniques of the learning assessment were determined by the Ministry of National Education. In the new scheme of curriculum development, the central government, which extends to the Board of National Standard of Education, determines the standard competencies for the graduates from each school level, the standard of curriculum content, and guidelines for developing this curriculum based on its rights. In accordance with the national standard and its guidelines, the school community, under the supervision of the local government, designs the curriculum for its own schools. The school based curriculum consists of several components: vision, mission, and objectives of school education, structure and content of curriculum, calendar of education, and compilation of syllabus and lesson plans for each course. This curriculum development strategy will guarantee that the curriculum is relevant with the needs and conditions of the students. In addition, the sense of belonging to a school community in the curriculum may result in optimum implementation of the curriculum.
The implementation of school based curriculum gives more freedom to schools and school committees to develop the school curriculum, analyze the internal and external school environment, and determine the vision, mission, and objectives of education initiated by the schools. Then, referring to national standards, each school develops its own curriculum through accommodating the minimum contents of the curriculum determined nationally as well as local contents considered important for the students. The local contents are determined by the school community to develop competencies of the students based on the local resources and specific mission of the schools.
In cooperation with the local government, the schools determine the calendar of school education. In addition, groups of teachers under the coordination of head teachers and school committees prepare the syllabus of courses consisting of components for the targeted competencies, content of courses, learning experience of students, needed teaching materials, and the assessment techniques to be implemented. In order to prepare the implementation of the curriculum at the classroom level, the teachers prepare the lesson plan covering the objectives of learning to be achieved in one learning episode, a learning scenario, teaching materials, and assessment tools to be applied.
Teachers who implement the KTSP curriculum should have variety resources, methodologies and know what values bound the students. Of course it will need extra-attention of the teacher. Some untrained teachers will deal with problems, particularly in delivering the curriculum content to the students because a successful innovation implementation such as curriculum implementation needs responsible competencies. As stated by Richard (2001) “teachers are a key factor in the successful implementation of curriculum changes and inadequately trained teachers may not be able to make effective use of teaching materials not matter how well they are designed” (Richard, 2001, p. 99).
The Stufflebeam CIPP model for Curriculum Evaluation
CIPP is an acronym for Context, Input, Process and Product that was developed by Daniel Stufflebeam in 1971; it began when he and his colleagues were in the 1960s experienced on evaluating education project for the Ohio Public Schools District (Robinson, 2002). In this approach, information is seen as most valuable when it helps program managers to make better decisions, so evaluation activities should be planned to coordinate with the decision needs of program staff. Data collection and reporting are then undertaken in order to promote more effective program management.
There are many different definitions of evaluation, but one which reflects the CIPP approach is “Program evaluation is the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and outcome of program for use by specific people to reduce uncertainties, improve effectiveness, and make decisions with regard to what those programs are doing and affecting” (Patton, 1986, p. 14 as cited in Robinson, 2002, p. 1).
Daniel Stufflebeam was also a chair of the Phi Delta Kappa Committee that his model seemed to appeal on the importance of producing evaluative data for decision making that leads up to the justification for evaluation of curriculum. Regarding the needs of decision makers about curriculum, Stufflebeam models provides a means for generating data relating to four stages of program operation: context evaluation, which continuously assesses needs and problems in the context in order to help decision makers determine goals and objectives; input evaluation, which assesses alternative means for achieving those goals to help decision makers choose optimal means; process evaluation, which monitors the processes both to ensure that the means are actually being implemented and to make the necessary modifications; and product evaluation, which compares actual ends with intended ends and leads to a series of recycling decisions (as cited in Glatthorn, Floyd and Bruce, 2006 by Glatthorn, 1987, pp. 273-274).
During each of these four strategies, specifics steps are taken:
The kinds of decisions are identified
The kinds of data needed to make those decisions are identified
Those data are collected
The criteria for determining quality are established
The data are analyzed on the basis of those criteria
The needed information is provided to decision makers
(As cited in Glatthorn, Floyd and Bruce, 2006 by Glatthorn, 1987)
Stufflebeam (1971) explained that the “CIPP model was originally developed as a means to systematically provide timely evaluative information for use in decision-making” (p. 2). Further, he thought that evaluation should be a process of delineating, obtaining and providing useful information to decision-makers, with the overall goal of program or project improvement.
The four aspects of CIPP evaluation (context, input, process and product) assist a decision-maker to answer four basic questions:
What should we do?
This involves collecting and analyzing needs assessment data to determine goals, priorities and objectives. For example, a context evaluation of a literacy program might involve an analysis of the existing objectives of the literacy program, literacy achievement test scores, staff concerns (general and particular), literacy policies and plans and community concerns, perceptions or attitudes and needs.
How should we do it?
This involves the steps and resources needed to meet the new goals and objectives and might include identifying successful external programs and materials as well as gathering information
Are we doing it as planned?
This provides decision-makers with information about how well the program is being implemented. By continuously monitoring the program, decision-makers learn such things as how well it is following the plans and guidelines, conflicts arising, staff support and morale, strengths and weaknesses of materials, delivery and budgeting problems.
Did the program work or succeed?
By measuring the actual outcomes and comparing them to the anticipated outcomes, decision makers are better able to decide if the program should be continued, modified, or dropped altogether. This is the essence of product evaluation.
Aspect of evaluation
Type of decision
Kind of question
What should we do
How should we do it
Are we doing it as planned? And if not, why not?
Did it work?
(Adopted in Robinson, 2002, p. 2)
Table 1. The CIPP Model of Evaluation
1.3.1 CIPP Critics on Evaluation
Besides having several attractive features such as: its emphasis on decision making seems appropriate for administrators concerned with improving curricula, its concern for the formative evaluation remedies, the CIPP model has some drawbacks; its main weaknesses seems to be its failure to recognize the complexity of the decision making process in organizations. It assumes more rationality than exists in such situations and ignores the political factors that play a large part in these decisions (As cited in Glatthorn, Floyd and Bruce, 2006, p. 304).
CIPP has also said to hold an idealized notion of what the process should be rather than its actuality and is too top-down or managerial in approach, depending on an ideal of rational management rather than recognizing its messy reality. In practice, the informative relationship between evaluation and decision-making has proved difficult to achieve and perhaps does not take into account sufficiently the politics of decision-making within and between organizations.
In this study, based on my preliminary observation toward some researches done, there is no study using a CIPP model to evaluate the KTSP curriculum especially in Indragiri Hilir regency; thus will be interesting in future to investigate how the entire aspect of decentralization curriculum such as KTSP is being implemented there.
This study will explore and interpret the phenomenon of the nature on complexities of implementing KTSP curriculum on the teaching of English as foreign language. The researcher designs this study as a case study, where it is an-in depth exploration of a bounded system (e.g., an activity, event, process, or individuals) based on extensive data collection (Creswell, 2008, p. 476).
This study will refer to the curriculum implementation based on the context of its evaluation technique determined in its Context, Input, Process and Product as in the model developed by Daniel Stufflebeam (1971).
Three levels of different schools will be selected in this study; they are junior high school, senior high school and Madrasah (Islamic senior high school). For junior and senior high school will be again selected each one of the famous school in the urban area of Indragiri Hilir Regency, then for Madrasah will be one of the Islamic senior high school in the capital of sub-district of Indragiri Hilir Regency.
Sampling process in a qualitative study depends on the purpose of the data collection (Johnson & Christensen, 2000; Miles & Hubermen, 1994). This means that all samples selected are regarded as having potential to contribute to attaining the answers of the research questions, purposive sampling technique will use in this study to look at events, people, and documents as sources of evidence of the context, input, process, and product of the KTSP implementation.
Data Collection Technique
To reduce bias or limitations of a specific method, this study will use a variety of methods (triangulation) to gather data from different sources (Maxwell, 1996).
Data analysis will be conducted during the course of gathering further data. This is, besides saving time, to avoid the accumulation of raw data collected (Bogdan & Biklen 1992), and to promote the emergence of substantive theory grounded in empirical data (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). The data will be analyzed according to the use of the following:
Generating categories through coding
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal: