INDONESIAN NATIONAL EXAMINATION POLICIES: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

INDONESIAN NATIONAL EXAMINATION POLICIES: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Education

Indah Triwahyuni Puspitasari

Students No. a1638976

The University of AdelaideSchool of Profession

Discipline of Education

November 2014

Indonesian National Examination Policies: Critical Discourse Analysis

ABSTARCT

This study evaluates and analyses the educational policies regarding NE as standardized

testing for primary and secondary students in Indonesia. Particularly, the recent standard

assessment and evaluation policies which are issued in 2013. Through careful examination of

the national examination policies, the study showed that the NE has not achieved fully the

intended goals of National Education Objectives. Drawing on critical discourse analysis of

newspaper articles, this paper analyses how society’s perspective towards National

examination has not changing significantly. This study also examine how inter-discursivity

within the educational policies achieve the comprehensible awareness for government on

how society perceived the NE in order to improve the credibility of the national examination

as standardize testing and one of indicator of National Education System.

Keywords: assessments, educational policies, critical discourse analysis

i


DECLARATION

This Thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text.

I give consent to this copy of my thesis being made available in all forms of media, for loan or photocopy, now or hereafter known.

Signed: Indah Triwahyuni Puspitasari/ a1638976 Date: 23 November 2014

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With thanks to Allah SWT, I would like to acknowledge and thank everyone who has assisted and enabled me to continue my studies at this level.

First of all, I would like to thank Australia Awards Scholarships for the funding provided for making my study and this thesis possible.

My greatest gratitude and respect go to my supervisor, Dr. Julia Miller who provided me with the invaluable inputs and suggestions not only for content advice, language inputs and insightful references, but also for her genuine ongoing support, patience, and encouragement. Thank you so much.

My thanks also to my colleagues at Master of Education, and Elite Editing for providing review of an earlier version of this manuscript and efficient editorial handling.

For continuous love and sacrifices, I express my grateful thanks to my mother, Iis Farida, and my daughter Sheva Alexandria Aulia Dewantara to whom I dedicate this thesis. Last but not least, I dedicated this thesis to my late father M. Arief. Faz, wish you were here pa.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figure

List of Abbreviations

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................11.1 Rationale .............................................................................................................11.2 Focus ....................................................................................................................41.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................41.4 Research Framework ..........................................................................................51.5 Significance of Study ..........................................................................................5

2. Literature Review .....................................................................................................62.1 Assessment and Standardize Testing ................................................................6

2.1.1 Formative and Summative Assessments ...............................................82.1.1.1 Formative Assessment ....................................................................92.1.1.2 Summative Assessment ..................................................................10

2.1.2 Standardized Testing ............................................................................142.2 Indonesia’s National Final Examination .........................................................152.3 Indonesia’s National Examination Policies ....................................................192.4 Previous Research on Educational Policies Analysis ....................................21

3. Methodology .................................................................................................................24

3.1 Research Design .................................................................................................243.2 Data Analysis Method ........................................................................................273.3 Unit of Analysis .................................................................................................29 3.3.1 Indonesian Education Policies ................................................................29 3.3.2NewspaperArticles .....................................................................................30

4. Analysis and Finding ...............................................................................................314.1 Policies of The National Examination Project ...............................................314.2 Society’s Objection to the National Examination ...........................................364.3 Inter-discursivity in Policy Texts .....................................................................41

5. Conclusion and Recommendation .........................................................................455.1 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................455.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................46

References ...........................................................................................................................47

iv


Appendices ...........................................................................................................................55

v


List of Tables

Table 1. Basic Law of the implementation of NE ..............................................................32

Table 2. Sources and Newspaper articles .........................................................................36

vi


List of Figure

Figure 1. Reasons for rejecting the NE from eight articles .............................................39

vii


List of Abbreviations

NE: National Examination

NFE: National Final Examination

MONE: Ministry of National Education

BSNP: Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan

NESA: National Educational Standard Agency

SOP: Standard Operating Procedure

CDA: Critical Discourse Analysis

ACDP: Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership

NAPLAN: National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy

SPSLE: Singapore Primary School Leaving Examination

SNMPTN: Admission State University selection of New Students

PISA: Program for International Students Assessment

viii

Indonesian National Examination Policies: Critical Discourse Analysis ix


Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Rationale

The Indonesian National Examination (NE), which is held annually as a prerequisite

for primary and secondary students continuing their education, has been controversial since

its implementation in 2003. This evaluation and assessment system is formulated for all

schools across Indonesia and is regulated by the assessment and evaluation standard policies

issued by the Ministry of National Education (MONE). In these policies, the MONE

regulates the materials and subjects to be tested, as well as how the NE is implemented, and it

sets the thresholds that must be achieved by students as graduation requirements. Failure to

achieve the minimum thresholds in the NE means failure to graduate from primary (Year 9)

and secondary school (Year 12). Further, to improve the quality of national education, the

MONE increases the standardised threshold of the NE every year. Thus, the NE represents

dominant and high-stakes testing in the Indonesian education system.

After the implementation of the NE, heavy criticisms were made not only by teachers

and parents, but also by students, who felt aggrieved with the NE. The primary objection is

the test format (only three subjects were tested between 2003 and 2007), particularly at the

Sekolah Menengah Pertama (junior high school/Year 9) and Sekolah Menengah Atas (senior

high school/Year 12) levels (Syahril, 2007, p. 4). Another significant issue is the passing

scores that are required in the NE, as they are used as the standard to measure students’

eligibility to continue their education at a higher level (Rahmila, 2010). Problems that

occurred during the 2013 NE implementation included delaying the NE in 11 provinces

because of logistical problems, mass cheating involving teachers and schools, and

psychological problems that burdened students and teachers (Suryadi, 2013; Sembiring,

2013). These issues have increased objections towards the NE.

1


In response to these objections, the MONE has revised some of its policies. For

example, in 2005, the MONE changed the name of the standardised test from Ujian Akhir

Nasional (NFE) to Ujian Nasional (NE) and raised the minimum threshold for graduation

from 4.01 to 4.51 out of 10 (Syahril, 2007, p. 4). In 2009, based on Ministry Regulation No.

75 Year 2009 about the NE at the primary and secondary levels, in Article 7 points 1–7, the

MONE added three more subjects to be tested in the NE based on Year 12 students’ specific

streams (Science, Social and Language Stream). In 2010, based on Government Regulation

No. 19 Year 2005, Ministry of Education Regulation No. 45 and No. 46 stipulated that the

graduate competency standards of students would comprise 40 per cent of the local school

assessment value and 60 per cent of the NE grade. The MONE revised the graduation

requirements by including students’ overall performance; however, this policy did not

consider the problems that could rise, such as boosting students’ scores in the local school

assessment value in order to achieve the standard national grade. This condition might initiate

more cheating and caused invalid educational quality. Although the MONE changed the

graduation thresholds, standard competencies and the composition of students’ scores, it did

not change the NE’s primary objective of being the main prerequisite for students to pass and

continue to a higher level of education.

During the implementation of the NE in 2013, some critical problems arose, such as

the delay of the NE in 5,109 senior high schools in 11 provinces (Suryadi, 2013). Despite

postponing the 2014 NE, the MONE issued two sets of policies as the basis of the 2014 NE.

First, Ministry Decree No. 66 Year 2013 was an amendment of Ministry Decree No. 20 Year

2007 in June 2013 relating to Educational Assessment Standards. It explains the vigorous

assessments that can be conducted at the primary and secondary levels, the intended aims of

the NE, and procedures for assessment techniques, particularly for the primary and secondary

levels. This was followed by Ministry of Education Regulation No. 97 Year 2013, issued in

2


November 2013, about the Criteria Graduation of Students from the Education Unit and

Implementation of Exam school/Madrasa/Educational Equality and the NE. based on this

regulation, The MONE postponed the NE for Year 6 regarding nine-year compulsory

education, and changing the grade composition of the graduation threshold (40 per cent local

school assessment and 60 per cent NE) where the composition of the local school assessment

was 70 per cent (up from 60 per cent) of students’ report and 30 per cent (down from 40 per

cent) of the local school final assessment. The students’ report consists of the final grade

from the first semester to the fifth semester of schooling. These two decrees were released to

reassure the public about the significant changes to NE practices, as implemented in the

national standardised testing in 2014.

Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan (BSNP, known as the National Educational

Standards Agency (NESA) in English) was commissioned to implement the NE based on

Government Regulation No. 32 Year 2013, which was an amendment to Government

Regulation No. 19 Year 2005 Article 67.1. NESA’s main duties are to organise the NE for

students at the primary (Year 9) and secondary (Year 12) levels, and to ensure education

equality and provide non-formal pathways. Government Regulation No. 19 Year 2005 Article

67.2 related to the implementation of the NE, stating that NESA will cooperate with the

relevant agencies, including the MONE, provincial governments, district/city governments

and other education units. Further, in Ministry Decree No. 97 Year 2013 Article 17, the

MONE appointed NESA as an independent organisation to organise and implement the NE

nationally. Based on these laws, NESA developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for

implementing the NE in 2014. The SOP of the NE for 2013/2014 underlined the purpose of

the NE as an assessment tool to measure the achievement of national competency standards

in certain subjects (National Exam Policy Year 2013/2014). Although the composition of the

scores required for students to graduate and continue to higher education has changed, the NE

3


is still the largest determinant for primary and secondary students continuing to a higher level

of schooling.

1.2 Focus

The aim of this research is to provide an insight into the recent NE policies and to

identify the likelihood that this standardised test will achieve the intended educational goal

stipulated in Act no. 20 Year 2003. By analysing the literature regarding the standardised

educational evaluation and assessment, and related policy documents, the NE project will be

observed in greater detail. In methodological terms, this project will use Critical Discourse

Analysis (CDA) to provide an understanding of the implementation of the NE policies, as

well as the public’s objections towards the NE, as reported in The Jakarta Post and The

Globe (Indonesian national newspapers written in English). These articles can be found in the

public opinion section, and they disseminate the message that the Indonesian NE is vital for

guaranteeing the improvement of national educational quality. This study particularly

analyses the intersection of the recent Indonesian NE policies issued in 2013 and media

discourses regarding society’s objections published before and after the 2013 NE policies.

1.3 Research Questions

One of Indonesia’s national education goals is to improve the quality of education

through the NE. This study analyses the recent policies to answer the following question:

Is the NE likely to measure the intended goal of improving educational quality for

students in Indonesia?

To answer the main question, three sub-questions have been prepared:

1. How much do Indonesian government policies aim to provide a foundational basis for

the NE to be framed as the indicator of Indonesian education achievement nationally?

(What do the government and public think about the NE?)

4


2. Was there any difference in public opinion towards the NE before and after the recent

policies were released?

3. To what extent have policy revisions succeeded in improving the quality of the NE

according to the public and the government?

1.4 Research Framework

This study applied CDA, which focuses on analysing education policies and

newspaper articles as ‘regulative texts’ to reframe the Indonesian NE that is embedded in

them. Wodak and Meyer (2002, p. 2) stated that CDA can be applied to research that aims to

uncover the relations between language and power on discursive unit of text to be the basis

unit of communication. In particular, this study situates the production and reproduction of

policy texts regarding Indonesian national testing and the concomitant ‘objection responses’

articles within a socio-cultural framework that can be deeply analysed by applying

Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework. Fairclough’s framework is applied to analyse the

relationship between power, social practice and language within Indonesian educational

policies. Conversely, society’s objections towards the NE in the newspaper articles, which

are considered to represent society’s voice, could be more deeply analysed by applying Van

Dijk’s framework, which was developed in 1998. Van Dijk’s framework is appropriate for

examining the relationship between society, discourse and social cognition. This study also

aims to find the inter-discursive texts between the education policies as the government’s

voice and the newspaper articles as society’s voice by applying a similar method as Youl-

Kwan and Mi Ok (2012), who applied Fairclough’s framework regarding inter-discursivity

text.

1.5 Significance of the Study

By analysing the education policies—particularly the NE policies—the expected

outcomes of this study will provide a better understanding for the government on the

5


recontextualisation of educational policies relating to the NE as standardised testing for

primary and secondary students. Further, by analysing the newspaper articles—particularly

objections towards NE—this study can provide comprehensive awareness for the government

on how society perceives the NE in order to improve its credibility as standardised testing

and an indicator of the national education system. The print media has strongly objected to

the NE since its implementation in 2003, and this provides a rich source of information for

revising policies. This study also offers suggestions for improving Indonesian secondary

students’ education through the NE. Lastly, it attempts to analyse recent educational policies

in order to investigate possible improvements in the NE as the standardised means of testing.

6


Chapter 2: Literature Review

This literature review sets the context for this study of the evaluation and analysis of

Indonesia’s NE policies. This literature review covers the assessment, standardised testing,

Indonesia’s NE, Indonesia’s NE policies, theories underpinning the analysis of educational

policies, and previous studies conducted in this area. The first section discusses the

assessment in general, as well as issues relating to standardised testing. The second section

explains the NE in Indonesia. The third section briefly describes Indonesia’s NE policies. The

last section presents the position of this research in relation to previous studies in this area.

2.1 Assessment and Standardized Testing

Assessment in the education field plays an important role as ‘a key transformational

phase’ (Kim, 2013, p. vii). This transformational phase refers to preparation for a higher

educational level, and it helps students (particularly secondary students) to adapt to the real

world of work and life in general. According to the Education Sector Analytical and Capacity

Development Partnership (ACDP) (2013, p. 1), assessment is a phase that assesses

educational outcomes by measuring the progress of education quality. Assessment can be

seen not only as ‘a continuous and integral part of teaching and learning’ (Brady & Kennedy,

2010, p. 172), but also as a tool to measure the progress of individual students in the form of

track records of the education quality of schools and the educational system (Cohen et al.,

2006, p. v). Kellaghan (2004, p. 2) defined assessment generally as a technique designed to

increase students’ ‘knowledge, attitudes, or skills’. These can be measured within the process

of, or at the end of, the teaching–learning process. Further, assessment is a standardised tool

that is used to measure what is taught by the teacher and what is learned by the student, and it

can be used as a selection system for further levels of education (Greaney & Kellaghan,

2008). Eisner (1993, p. 225) proposed five functions of assessment to achieve education

7


goals: the national scale of the education system; the learning strategies of students; the

reflection of teaching strategies, particularly for the teacher; the course accomplishment; and

indicators of learning program quality. More specifically, McInerney and McInerney (2006,

cited in Brady & Kennedy, 2010) explained six main purposes of assessment, which reflect

the interrelationship of the individual and social purposes:

guide the teacher to determine the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process

provide information to develop the teaching and learning process

assist the teacher to develop effective and efficient feedback

help the replacement process to support students with special needs

provide information for students’ parents

provide rubrics for development.

In general, the term ‘assessment’ is different from ‘evaluation’ and ‘measurement’.

Brady and Kennedy (2010, p. 173) claimed that the evaluation process involves making

decisions regarding a student’s achievement based on the assessment process, whereas

measurement is ‘the systematic classification of observations of student’ performance’ and

explicitly involves individual and group performance. The process of assessment, evaluation

and measurement in education has evolved to the most common assessment techniques in

education: formative and summative assessments.

2.1.1 Formative and Summative Assessments

The most common assessment methods conducted at the secondary level in Indonesia

are formative assessment and summative assessment. These two types of assessment are

well-known methods for assessing students’ performance and knowledge. These terms were

proposed by Michael Scriven in 1967 to define students’ assessments that covered the on-

going and completed teaching–learning processes. ‘Formative’ and ‘summative’ are the

common terms used to distinguish the assessment process (cited in William, 2006). These

8


two assessments are intertwined as classroom assessment techniques to help assess learning

and teaching strategies (Biggs, 1998). Cauley and McMillian (2010, p. 1) highlighted that

formative assessment refers to the evidence of students’ knowledge and understanding,

teachers’ feedback, and the ongoing learning process, whereas summative assessment only

provides the latest students’ achievements. Summative assessment provides information

about the teaching–learning process and students’ achievements, which can provide valuable

data for education quality evaluations and be used as a selection method for further

education. Conversely, formative assessment applies during the teaching–learning process

and provides insights into students’ needs and progress, which leads to better teaching

strategies, enhanced curriculum and improved education system (ET, 2006, p. 1).

2.1.1.1 Formative Assessment

Formative assessment measures students’ achievements as part of the teaching and

learning process, which is also known as assessment for learning. William, Lee, and Black

(2004, p. 54) explained that formative assessment is an integral part of the teaching and

learning process, and that it gives the best results when it is implemented at the beginning of

the class, although changes are inevitable during the process. Changes might occur in an

attempt to enhance and prepare students for summative assessment, as formative assessment

is embedded in the teaching–learning process. Direct feedback on formative assessment could

empower students to be more independent learners (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006);

moreover, teachers and students could be actively involved during the teaching, learning and

assessment process (Chen et al., 2013).

Formative assessment as assessment for learning can assist teachers to fill the gap

between what students have learnt and what they have not fully understood. Theoretically,

teachers and educators can directly use formative assessment to monitor students’ progress.

Further, students’ can be actively involved in monitoring their learning. Therefore, the main

9


purpose of formative assessment is for students to be assessed for learning by adapting the

teaching techniques to students’ needs (Black et al., 2003, cited in Antoniou & James, 2014).

2.1.1.2 Summative Assessment

Summative assessment is usually conducted at the end of the teaching–learning

process, and it is used to measure educational outcomes. It could be formed as a standardised

test (Johnson & Jenkins, 2003), as the grades are provided by using a set of standard criteria,

benchmarks or rubrics as an outcome to determine whether students have gained the required

level of knowledge, and to indicate students’ ability to move to a higher level of education.

The involvement of grades, certification, failing and passing in certain levels of education has

resulted in summative assessment being considered the high-stakes assessment (ET, 2006;

Regier, 2012). Summative assessment is usually employed at various levels, such as local

summative assessment at the school level, the NE at the national level and international

summative assessment such as OECD’s Programme for International Students Assessment

(PISA), which is used to compare the national education systems of its members.

According to the Teacher’s Guide to Assessment, which was written by the Australian

Capital Territory Government (2011, p. 7), summative assessment as an assessment of

learning provides evidence of the educational system overall—particularly relating to what

students have gained in the learning process, and the effectiveness of the teaching strategies

that have been applied. Students’ achievements generated from summative assessment also

show whether the intended curriculum goals have been achieved (Regier, 2012).

Some scholars (Black & William, 2006; Dwyer, 2006; Cauley & McMillian, 2010;

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2008; Shute & Kim, 2014) have broadly

discussed the discrepancies in assessment for learning as formative assessment and

assessment of learning as summative assessment. Stiggins (2002, p. 761) claimed that there

are differences between assessment for learning and formative assessment, explaining that

10


assessment for learning is part of formative assessment because it actively engages students

and examines their achievements in the learning process. However, formative assessment can

be integrated with summative assessment as the reflection of the teaching and learning

process (Regier, 2012; Stiggins, 2002) in the form of students’ feedback. The feedback given

during the teaching process could improve the learning process when students respond

positively (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 82).

Feedback is one of the most important aspects that can effectively enhance formative

and summative assessment. Alagumalai (2005, p. 2) stated that a teacher’s greatest challenge

in the teaching–learning process is providing appropriate feedback on students’ knowledge

and experience assessment. Effective feedback can determine what students know and what

they need to know in order to improve their performance (Biggs, 1998, p. 104). It also

highlights the quality of the teaching–learning process so that teachers can improve their

teaching strategies (Swaffield, 2011, p. 435). Further, feedback can be used to obtain

information regarding the achievements of the education system as a whole. Hattie and

Timperley (2007, p. 82) emphasised that feedback can have significant benefits if it

encapsulates ‘the learning context to which feedback is addressed’, where students are fully

aware of their own learning achievements. However, feedback may not result in further

action by students.

Broadly, these types of assessment are included in Indonesian educational policies,

albeit from different weight on students’ report (Harlen & James, 1997). Summative

assessment, which tends to be more ‘powerful and influential’ politically (Antoniou & James,

2014), appears in the form of standardised testing. Despite being conducted locally in the

final semester, many countries have developed summative assessment to evaluate students’

achievements as national standardised testing.

11


2.1.2 Standardised Testing

Generally, the purpose of testing has been distinguished by the intention of the test

designer and the test taker. William (2010, p. 107) stated that the test could be separated into

three common classifications based on the purpose and need of the stakeholder involved:

diagnostic tests, norm-referenced tests and criterion-referenced tests. A criterion-referenced

test is generally applied to measure students’ knowledge based on a standard or set of

standards. A prevalent form of criterion-referenced tests in education is the standardised test.

Shute and Kim (2014, p. 311) pointed out that the main goal of conducting standardised

testing is ‘to ensure the accountability of schools and teachers’.

The standardised test conducted at the primary and secondary levels involves many

stakeholders. It might have been designed not only to assess students’ individually, but also

to assess the quality of teachers, schools and education systems. According to the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), examination at the

secondary level should have three purposes. First, exams should have a function and entail

controlling system access to secondary schools, courses within schools and entry to higher

education institutions. Second, exams should have a certifying function and entail finding out

and reporting what a student has achieved, whether they have graduated, and what they know

and can do. Third, the exam system should use the examination result for accountability

purposes and, in particular, for evaluating the effectiveness of instruction, motivating students

and teachers to perform well, and reviewing the effectiveness of the school (Hill, 2013, p. 4).

The assessment that has developed to gauge the national level of learning achievement is

mostly modelled on standardised testing. The NE can be interpreted as a description of the

entire national education system’s achievement (Kellaghan, 2004)—particularly for the

Indonesian NE. Postlethwaite and Kellaghan (2008, p. 1) stated that the national assessment

provides supplementary information for the improvement of the education system and

12


education process. Further, Hill (2014, p. 2) explained that assessment at the secondary level

predominantly uses ‘the objectively-scored test, with aptitude testing being the primary

means of controlling access to higher education’. Standardised testing that tests certain

subjects generally relies on the multiple-choice format and tests certain subjects or skills—for

example, in Indonesia, the NE only tests students on mathematics, the Indonesian language

and English. Chemistry, physics, biology, sociology and history would be added for Year 12.

Australia’s National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) only tests

students’ reading, writing, language conventions (spelling, grammar and punctuation) and

numeracy, whereas the subjects tested in the Singapore Primary School Leaving Examination

(PSLE) are English, mother tongue language, mathematics and science.

Broadly, every country that has applied the national students’ assessment considers

the NE the main system to indicate the educational outcomes—particularly in the Asia-

Pacific region (Hill, 2013). Nevertheless, the NE can be classified as a ‘high-stakes test’

(Volante, 2004). The high-stakes test is ‘a test which provides information on the basis of

which significant decision are made about candidates’ (McNamara, 2000, cited in Afrianto,

2011). Hill (2013) reported that the examination can be an indicator of the students’ next

grade level, provide access to the most prestigious schools or universities, and ultimately

decide whether the student will get a good job and the best opportunities in life. Therefore,

the Indonesian NE can be defined as standardized testing, as it is designed to be tested for one

level of schooling, and it has standard question booklets and answers. Moreover, it has

similar intended standard goals, and the standardisation focuses on fairness as the prerequisite

when the obtained scores are being compared (Braun & Kanjee, 2006, p. 14).

The national assessment has mostly been developed as standardised testing, which has

become a reliable tool of students’ assessment to measure educational quality (Braun &

Kanjee, 2006). Although some countries apply different methods to assess students, they

13


have similar objectives to the NE. For instance, in Australia, NAPLAN is an annual

assessment for students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9, and it has been a regular part of the school

calendar since 2008. Further, NAPLAN conducts tests in four areas (or domains): reading,

writing, language conventions (spelling, grammar and punctuation) and numeracy (National

Assessment Program, 2014). Its main objective is to obtain data in order to initiate ongoing

improvements at the school, state and national levels. Likewise, the NE in Singapore is held

for students in Years 6 and 10 for entry to post-secondary education (Har, 2006). The

Indonesian NE is held for students in Year 6 (completion of primary), Year 9 (for entry to

secondary education) and Year 12 (for completion of post-secondary education and entry to

higher education) (Syahril, 2007; Hill, 2013). The NE in both countries is also used as an

indicator to evaluate the national education system.

According to Anderson and Morgan (2008, p. 9), the national education assessment is

usually the full responsibility of the Ministry of Education or its appointed national steering

committee. The Minister of Education plays an important role in ensuring the educational

national quality by developing and implementing standardised testing nationally. The

attainment of national assessment could represent an opportunity for the government—

particularly education ministries and policy makers—to gain information about the education

quality nationally (Greaney & Kellaghan, 2008, p. 2). Conversely, the need for accountability

and validity of standardised testing would affect teaching and learning practices (Biggs, 1997,

p. 103). As the national assessment result is used to monitor education quality over time,

teachers and students can become familiar with the pattern of testing, which can produce

invalid results (Greaney & Kellaghan, 2008, p. 19). In South Korea, Youl-Kwan and Mi Ok

(2102) stated that ‘National testing, assumed to aggravate excessive competition among

students and to promote a drastic expansion of the private sector’, and it may lead the teacher

teach the material only for testing preparation. Au (2011, p. 30) stated that the high-stakes

14


examination in the United States (US) has promoted the standardising teaching process,

which ‘disempowers and deskills teachers’, and it can lead to the teacher teaching the tested

materials rather than what the curriculum and students need. Further, standardised testing has

promoted a drastic expansion of the private sector because the teaching process is heavily

focused on preparing students for the test.

2.2 Indonesia’s National Final Examination

Across the Republic of Indonesia, there are four stages of education: early years,

primary (years 1–9, ages 6–14), secondary (years 10–12, ages 14–17) and higher education

(HE). Education is compulsory for all children aged 6–15. Secondary education is not

compulsory; however, most primary students continue their study in senior colleges. The

fourth stage (HE) is study beyond the aptitude test and academic potential subjects in the

Admission State University Selection of New Students (SNMPTN) for enrolling in state

universities (SNMPTN, 2014) and their equivalent, which for most full-time students takes

place in universities and other HE institutions and colleges.

The first NE in Indonesia was conducted before Indonesia Independence in 1972 with

the Ujian Negara/State Exam (Afrianto, cited in Rahmila, 2010). From 1972 to 1980, the

government implemented the local NE, where schools could conduct their own examination

and decide the passing grade, which resulted in 100 per cent of students passing (Depdiknas,

2009a). In the following year, the government implemented EBTANAS (National Final

Learning Examination), where the passing grade was a combination of scores in report books,

the NE and the school examination (Depdiknas, 2009a). This system was in place until 2002.

In 2003, at the end of the primary and secondary stages of education, students were usually

entered in a range of internal examinations (school examination) and external examinations

(UJIAN Nasional/UN (National Final Examination)). Year 6 students started their national

assessment in 2009, while learning for middle (Year 9) and secondary students (Year 12)

15


focused solely on passing the national final examination, as it became the determinant to

entering the next level of schooling. Indonesia’s formal education emphasises the importance

of the national final examination, although since 2014, the Year 6 UN has been revoked

regarding the nine-year compulsory education.

Based on the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 75 Year 2009

Article 7, the NE subjects for Year 12 have increased from three subjects (Math, Bahasa

Indonesia and English) to six based on the students’ major. Students majoring in science

studies must take Chemistry, Biology and Physics, whereas social studies students must take

Economics, Sociology and Geography. Students majoring in language must take History and

Anthropology, Indonesia Literature, and one foreign language (either French, German,

Japanese, Mandarin or Arabic) (Depdiknas, 2009b). For those studying in Islamic schools or

madrasas, Tafsir (Qur’an study), Hadist and Fiqh (Islamic Law) are included in the NE.

Students who study in vocational schools must also take Teori Kejuruan (Vocational Theory)

during the NE.

In addition to the aims of the implementation of the NE from the beginning, Bambang

Sudibjo, the former Minster of the Indonesian Ministry of Education in 2004–2009, stated

that the NE could be used as a standard measurement tool of education to improve the quality

of education. Based on the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 66 Year

2013 about Education Assessment Standards, the NE results are subsequently used as a

graduation requirement for students in the educational unit; a consideration in being selected

for the next education level; education mapping quality; and guidance and assistance for

education quality improvement. However, in the 10 years since the NE was implemented, the

quality of education in Indonesia has not significantly improved. Based on the Programme for

International Students Assessment (PISA, 2012), Indonesia is ranked 64 among the 65

countries that participated in the three-year test cycle, with average scores of 375 for

16


mathematics, 396 for reading and 382 for science (OECD, 2013). PISA is a triennial

international standardised testing that evaluates education systems worldwide by testing the

skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. It is conducted by the OECD (2013). Further,

the 2012 Indonesian PISA result was only slightly better than Peru, which ranked last

(Kurniawati, 2013). Mailizar (2013) concluded from Indonesia’s PISA results in 2009 and

2012 that the Indonesian education system is stagnant, ‘despite massive investment’. As

reported by 101 East in Aljazeera and in A Liquid Future (2014), Indonesia’s education

system is one of the worst in the world and could be caused by emphasising the rote learning

system, which is applied by students and teachers in preparation for the NE. However, other

countries that also apply the rote learning system have achieved better results in PISA (e.g.,

China). Moreover, China also had standardised testing.

Objections towards the NE have also been reported as headline news in local and

national newspapers. For instance, Handayani (2010) wrote an article entitled ‘Commentary:

National exams: A source of national stress’, which was published in The Jakarta Post in

January 2010. Handayani pointed out that despite increasing the quality of national education

nationwide, the NE has widened the gap in education quality between rural and urban areas

because of the standardised test, which has not been followed by improvements in

infrastructure, teacher quality and school facilitation. In May 2014, a local newspaper in Bali

reported that the Bali Governor stated that the NE has caused depression among students. For

example, Leony Alvionita, a student at state-run junior high school SMP 1 Tabanan

committed suicide because she was unable to complete the mathematic exam during the

second day of the 2014 NE (Suriyani & Erviani, 2014). Although it was not the first suicide

case related to the NE, it still became a national issue.

17


In diverse countries like Indonesia, criterion-referenced tests that are used as an

indicator to assess national competency achievements might be considered unfair (Rahmila,

2010; Syahril, 2007) for several reasons:

1. Not all Indonesian students have access to similar facilities such as teaching materials

and qualified teachers—particularly students who live in remote areas. This may

increase the failure of students to reach the national standard.

2. Teachers and students tend to apply teaching and learning to the test.

3. The blueprints of each topic and skill provided by the government (the MONE

through BSNP) to help students and teachers becomes ‘compulsory knowledge’

compared to other topics and skills.

4. Teachers and students tend to lose their creativity regarding teaching and learning

because it is confined by the blueprint that must be learned in preparation for the NE.

Although NEs have caused many disadvantages—particularly for secondary and

primary students, teachers and the education system—the government still imposes the NE as

‘a benchmark for successful of teaching and learning process at national level’ (Rahmila,

2010). Jamaludin and Nurrohman (2010) believed that the NE could increase ‘Indonesia’s

human development index’, as there are fixed standards that should be achieved, particularly

in the education sector. Moreover, the MONE believes that the NE could provide a clear

description for the government to improve the national education program (Afrianto, 2008).

Hence, instead of abolishing the NE, the MONE revised its policies, which became the basis

for the implementation of the 2014 NE.

As the legal basis for Indonesia’s education policies, the Act of the Republic of

Indonesia No. 20 Year 2003 Article 3 stated that the national education functions to develop

the capability, character and civilisation of the nation for enhancing its intellectual capacity,

and it is aimed at developing learners’ potential so they become persons imbued with human

18


values who are faithful and pious to the one and only God; who possess morals and noble

character; who are healthy, knowledgeable, competent, creative and independent; and who

are democratic and responsible (translated and compiled by UNESCO, 2010/2011). To

achieve these education goals, the MONE imposed the NE as the standard assessment of

students, and as a determinant of students’ eligibility to continue to the next education level

by applying NE policies. These policies have enabled the importance of the NE to increase

every year under the Ministry Decrees, which were released between 2003 and 2013, and the

SOP, which was developed by NESA (see the recent NSEA No. 0045/SDAR/BSNP/I/2014

2014).

2.3 Indonesia’s National Examination Policies

Indonesia applies a hierarchical policy system. The basic law of Indonesian policy

system is the 1945 Constitution, which was written after Indonesia attained independence.

The 1945 constitution consists of the opening (preamble), XIV chapters, 37 articles, and

transitional and additional provisions. All national regulations and policies that regulate the

Indonesian system must be based on this constitution; in particular, national education is

regulated in chapter XIII, section 31, article 31.1 and Article 31.2. These policies and all

following policies can be seen in Appendix 1. Based on Article 31.2, the Regional

Representative Council (DPR) and the government (in this case, the President and the

MONE) developed government regulation as the basis of law to administrate the Indonesian

education system. The newest national education system policy is Act No. 20 Year 2003.

As the basis of the newest national education system Law, Act No. 20 Year 2003,

national education is specified in terms of Article 1.1 and Article 1.3, the national education

objectives are specified in Article 3, and the national education standards are regulated in

Article 1.17 and Article 35. Primary and secondary student evaluations are regulated

specifically in Article 57.1 and Article 57.2, and the objectives of evaluation are regulated in

19


Article 58.1 and Article 58.2. The policies that are related to students’ evaluation—

particularly the evaluation procedures, evaluation standard and evaluation material—will be

regulated further by the government regulation, which is ratified by the President and/or the

Education Ministry (Ministry of Education. 2004).

The NE as a standardised test for primary and secondary students is regulated by

specific policies that were issued from 2002 to 2013. This study compiles certain policies that

underlie the implementation of the 2014 NE. First, Government Regulation No. 32 Year 2013

was amended to Government Regulation No. 19 Year 2005 and relates to national education

standards. This policy regulates the competency standards that students must achieve in

Article 1.5. Articles 1.24–1.27 regulate the types of assessment, evaluation, testing and

examination. The procedure of NE implementation is regulated in Article 67 (points 1 and 2),

and Article 67.3 mentions that the implementation of the NE will be regulated further by the

MONE regulation (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2013b).

In addition, MONE Regulation No. 66 Year 2013 Education Assessment Standards

was revised to the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 20 Year 2007. It

was issued in June 2013 to regulate the educational assessment standards. For more detail

about the assessment standards, this policy is equipped by an ANNEX. The NE is specifically

mentioned in ANNEX Chapter II.A.10 for the definition, while Chapter II.D.2.f mentions the

competency level of examination in every level of schooling and Chapter II.D.2.i mentions

that the NE is conducted based on the regulation. Chapter II.D.5 mentions that the NE will be

conducted based on SOPs. Chapter II.E.2.h mentions the requirements for students’

graduation. Chapter II.E.3.a specifically explains the definition of the NE, and Chapter

II.E.3.a.2 states the goals of the NE, which is:

1. one of the requirements of students’ graduation criteria from the educational unit

2. one of the considerations in the selection for the next education level

20


3. mapping educational quality

4. guidance and assistance for education quality improvement.

(Ministry of Education and Culture., 2013c)

Finally, MONE Regulation No. 97 Year 2013 relates to students’ graduation criteria

from the education units and the implementation of school/madrasah/educational equality

examination and the NE. This policy provides comprehensive descriptions of the NE. Chapter

1 Article 1 states the role of the NE (points 5 and 9), the role of BSNP (NESA) (point 10) and

the rule of the NE implementation (points 14 and 17). Chapter II Article 2 talks about the

completion criteria, and Chapter II Article 6 (points 1 and 2) explain the threshold of the NE

for students to pass to a higher education level. Chapter VI Article 14 (points 1–7) explains

how the NE is being implemented, as well as the stakeholders involved in the NE

implementation. The subjects that are tested in the NE are regulated in Chapter II Article 17

and Article 23 (points 3 and 4) (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2013d ).

2.4 Previous Research on Educational Policies Analysis

There have been numerous studies on the implementation of the Indonesian NE. Most

previous studies have focused on the effects of the NE (e.g., Syahril, 2007; Rahmila, 2010;

Afrianto, 2011). Syahril’s (2007) study focused on the effect of the NE on students, teachers

and school administrators. Ramila’s (2010) study focused on considering an alternative

assessment that could be applied to measure Indonesian students’ outcomes after some

disadvantages occurred as a result of the implementation of the NE. Afrianto’s (2011) study

discussed the wash-back of the NE to Indonesian secondary students regarding the NE as

high-stakes testing. There are also some studies, which are written in Indonesian, that have

focused on analysing education policy. Suryadi (2013) evaluated the 2013 NE

implementation by analysing some documents, and Subhkan’s (2013) study focused on how

the education policy should be analysed and evaluated by applying a social engineering

21


model and an enlightenment model. Subhkan (2013, p. 1) pointed out that there are two

policies that are considered to have failed in Indonesia: international standard school and NE

policies.

Most studies that have been conducted have analysed NE policies and/or media

articles as the main data; however, few studies have used CDA to link media discourse with

educational policies—in this case, policies regarding the Indonesian NE.

A preponderance of studies has applied CDA to analyse the educational policies of

countries such as South Korea (Youl-Kwan & Mi Ok, 2010) and Ghana (Nudzor, 2013).

Moreover, according to Youl-Kwan and Mi Ok (2010, p. 54), some researchers have

proposed analysis to link media discourse with educational policies (e.g., Anderson, 2007;

Kelly, 2006; Lingard & Rawolle, 2004; McKenzie, 2006; Moses, 2007; Ungerleider, 2006;

Wallace, 2007, cited in Youl-Kwan & Mi Ok, 2010) to allow society and policy maker to

understand the social, political and ideological implications of current political practices.

Thomas (2005) conducted a study that focused on how a teacher’s identity has been

constructed in educational policies using Chouliaraiki and Fairclough’s CDA framework.

Thomas identified that five stages of Chouliaraiki and Fairclough’s framework can trace the

construction of a teacher’s identity within and through policy discourse. In addition, she

pointed out that ‘it is not necessary for a CDA to involve all five stages of the framework and

it may focus on some stages and not others’. In contrast, Nudzor’s (2013, p. 179) study

illustrated how CDA can be applied to show ‘how Ghana’s education policy has evolved over

time’. By applying CDA, the study highlighted how language as a resource indicates new

textual formation and marginal discourses within policy texts, and it traced discursive shifts

in policy implementation processes.

In the Indonesian context, CDA mostly applies to analyses of media discourses (e.g.,

Zifana, 2011; Hamad, 2004). Unfortunately, few education researchers have applied CDA to

22


analyse the linkages between the media and education policy. Thus, there is a need to

critically reframe our lens on Indonesian educational policy making. This study is intended to

fill the gap in Indonesian education policy and media analysis where CDA is used to analyse

the contents of Indonesian education policies—specifically NE policies.

23


Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter describes the research design, data analysis method, unit of analysis and

research procedure.

3.1 Research Design

This qualitative research employs the CDA approach to analyse policy documents and

newspaper articles. Bogoan and Biklen (1997, p. 57) affirmed that a set of documents could

be applied as primary sources in qualitative research. Moreover, they divided the documents

into three types: personal documents, which are produced by people individually, such as

letters, diaries, autobiographies, family, photo albums and other visual recordings; official

documents, which are written by organisations for ‘record-keeping and dissemination

purposes’, such as memos, newsletters, files and yearbooks; and popular culture documents,

which aim to entertain, persuade and enlighten the public, such as TV programs, news

reports, commercials/advertisements, and audio and visual recordings. Moreover, spoken and

written documents, which are rich sources of information both economically and politically

(Luke, 1995–1996, p. 5), can be salient sources to answer the issues and phenomena that

occur in the society and that can be explained by analysing particular texts and searching for

connections within and between texts (Fairclough, 1992b, p. 269). Analysing discourse can

uncover how language shapes the social practice and process.

CDA was created by Norman Fairclough in the early 1970s, and it has become a

popular method in educational research (Morgan & Taylor, 2005). The application of CDA as

an educational research methodology is mainly associated with analysing the ‘policy

documents, interview data and classroom talk’ (Luke, 1997, cited in Morgan & Taylor, 2005,

p. 2). CDA not only focuses on textual analysis, but also attempts to criticise ‘a particular

conception and attitude’ adopted in society (Hammersley, 1997, p. 237) and how ‘hegemony

24


is produced, reproduced, and transmitted’ to written and spoken texts (Youl-Kwan & Mi Ok,

2012, p. 55). CDA can be applied in two ways: ‘critically and constructively’ (Luke, 1995–

1996, p. 12). These approaches can define how social practice is represented and constructed

‘within a specific ideological system through implicit message based on what is said and left

unsaid’ (Lee Kean-Wah & Thang Siew Ming, 2010, p. 143). McIntyre, Francis, and

Chapman (2012, p. 37) explained how CDA views the discourses ‘to functioning of power in

social process and the reproduction of power in given situation, to understand the processes

of power and how these power use discourse to achieve power’. Hence, CDA can be used as

an instrument to investigate the relationship between discourse, power and the social process

in depth.

The term ‘discourse’ is usually explained in two ways: linguistic and social theory

(Berg, 2009, p. 215). Discourse in the linguistics field tends to be ‘particular passages of

speech and writing’ (Bloor & Bloor, 2007, pp. 6–7), whereas in social theory, Foucault

describes discourse as a systematic form that is structured by ‘knowledge and social practice

where the meaning is being hidden within the word’ (Berg, 2009, p. 215). This systematic

form constitutes the meaning, actual thought and identity of the author or speaker of the

discourse. Foucault’s discourse term refers to ‘practices that systematically form the objects

of which they speak’ (cited in Tenorio, 2011, p. 186); for example, the government’s

regulation conceals its intentions by being positioned as a representation of society. Likewise,

Foucault’s notion of discursive power describes discourse as a way of structuring social

practice, knowledge and power, which are not only ‘repressive’, but also ’productive’, and

generate an action of the people (Berg, 2009, p. 219). In this context, the language used in the

discourse encapsulates the relationship between the meaning and the power (Chouliaraki,

2008, p. 1). That is, discourse can represent power and knowledge by the word ‘choices’.

Hence, this study views educational policy as discourse in social theory point of views.

25


Policy texts can be referred to as discourse because they are ‘sites of struggles and

negotiations over the construction of competing and contradictory educational identities’

(Thomas, 2005, p. 4). Policy discourses are reflections of the ways in which people are

legitimated in the exercise of political power through the use of language (Codd, 1988, p.

235). Analysing policy as a discourse that focuses on content would expose the meanings that

lie behind the choice of words. Codd (1988, p. 235) assured that ‘policy is about the exercise

of political power and the language that is used to legitimate’. Moreover, Bacchi (2000, p.

46) pointed out that policy can be delineated as discourse when it accomplishes a worthwhile

aim, and when policy analysts have a hidden agenda that tends to be ‘political progressive’.

When CDA is applied to analyse the policy as discourse, the results can reveal much about

how the policy affects the society from which it originates. Moreover, Morgan and Taylor

(2005, p. 2) assured that CDA offers in-depth investigation and critical analysis of policy

texts in comprehensive social processes and contexts, and described the implication and

relationship of power, policy texts and discourse. They further explained that applying CDA

to analyse policy would allow a deeper investigation of both ‘the meaning’ and ‘the power

relations’ of the word choices embodied in the policy.

By deploying CDA, this study aims to analyse how the Indonesian government (in

this case, the MONE) shapes discursive practice about the NE by imposing the execution of

the NE through its most recent policies. This analysis will provide an understanding of the

extent to which the government has achieved its intended goal of improving the educational

quality of students in Indonesia with the NE as standardised testing.

As Jalal (2014) explained, discourse can control social opinions. By analysing the

newest education policies, which stress the importance of the NE and examine how society

reacts to policies before and after they are issued through print media discourses. By

following the framework developed by Youl-Kwan and Mi Ok (2012), this study

26


investigates: (1) discursive government texts; (2) inter-textuality between ‘regulative’

(Bernstein, 2000, cited in Youl-Kwan & Mi Ok, 2012) government policy texts and print

media texts; and (3) inter-discursivity between the recent policies to identify the power that

stakeholders strive to maintain. However, Thomas (2005, p. 60) confirmed that not all stages

of the framework need to be completed. To analyse how the MONE maintains the

perspective of the importance of the NE and what the public objected to, this study uses only

one of Youl-Kwan and Mi Ok’s (2012) frameworks and applies Van Dijk’s framework to

analyse the media discourses.

3.2 Data Analysis Method

The data analysis will be performed in three parts: the first part is an analysis of recent

education policies using Fairclough’s model; the second part is analysis of print media by

conducting CDA using Van Dijk’s three-level framework; and the third part is inter-

discursivity between the recent policies.

Following the research conducted by Youl-Kwan and Mi Ok (2012), which focused

more on ‘the discursive government text analyses’ (Youl-Kwan & Mi Ok, 2012), this study

aims to analyse how the NE policies might develop the hegemony power of the MONE,

where the policies are seen as ‘textual intervention into practice’ (Ball, 2006, p. 11).

Moreover, Youl-Kwan and Mi Ok’s (2012) research is based on Fairclough’s three-

dimensional model, which included: ‘the linguistic description’, ‘the interpretation of

relationship between discursive processes/interaction and the text’, and ‘the explanation of

the relationship between discourse and social and cultural reality’ (Rahmini & Riasati, 2011).

The lexical choices and framing will be applied to analyse key features in recent education

policies that are representative of the voice of the MONE as the regulator of the NE. The

lexical choices and framing will be categorised into themes, which will become indicators to

27


analyse the position of the NE in the Indonesian education system as a whole, and how the

NE can achieve Indonesia’s national education objectives.

Next, print media analysis will be conducted using CDA and Van Dijk’s three-level

framework. How social meaning and social power are produced through discursive practices

and legitimated is an important point in the analysis of Van Dijk’s framework (Zifana, 2011).

Lexical choices such as ‘mapping’, ‘quality’, ‘guidance’ and ‘standard’ have been produced

in both government text and media discourses to favour particular perspectives of the NE.

Rahmini and Riasati (2011, p. 106) believed that some approaches in CDA could be used to

uncover ‘the relationship between language, society, power, ideology, values and opinion’;

that is, CDA provides no rigid frameworks from specific studies. This study uses two stages

in Van Dijk’s framework: analysis of texts and social contexts. Some lexical choices will be

made based on the closest meaning that is representative of society’s opinion regarding the

objectives of the NE. In addition, the social contexts that have occurred will be analysed to

uncover the reasons behind society’s objections towards the implementation of the NE as

standardised testing in Indonesia.

According to Wu (2011, p. 97), inter-discursivity operates in a different dimension in

that it refers to how a text is constituted by a combination of other language conventions,

genres, discourses and styles. Generally, inter-discursivity refers to the ‘dialogicality theory’,

or heteroglossia, which was developed by Mikhail Bakhtin in 1986. It is a dialogue in which

discourse situates itself within the author and the reader, the speaker and the listener, and the

authority and society, through written and spoken discourses. Inter-discursivity is applied to

identify ‘dialogicality’, which the MONE tried to develop as a reaction after many objections

were received in order to legitimise and naturalise the 2014 NE.

28


3.3 Unit of Analysis

This study uses three units of analysis: Indonesian education policies, and newspaper

articles, which are published before the newest Indonesian education policies are issued, and

the newspaper article, which is published within or after the newest Indonesian education

policies are issued. These should be taken into consideration to analyse how public opinion is

revised before and after new policies are implemented.

3.3.1 Indonesian Education Policies

The educational policies for the study are the policies that focus on assessment—

particularly of NE policies issued in 2013. These policies are open to the public and are used

as the legal basis in the construct of the SOPs of the 2014 implementation of the NE

developed by BSNP. As the basis for the NE’s SOP developed by BNSP, the policies are

ordered in the following manner:

1. Act No. 20 Year 2003 relating to the national education system was ratified by the

DPR and the President. This study focuses on Article 1 point 1 and Article 3 of Act

No. 20 Year 2003, which mentions the national education objectives. This article has

become the basis of law on developing other education policies; moreover, this policy

focuses on the NE (see the Appendix). In addition, this policy discusses the national

evaluation in Article 57 points 1 and 2, and Article 58 points 1 and 2.

2. Government Regulation No. 32 Year 2013 was an amendment to Government

Regulation No. 19 Year 2005. It was ratified by the President in May 2013. This study

focuses on Article 1 point 5, which mentions the competency standards that should be

mastered by primary and secondary students, and points 24–27 focus on the definition

of evaluation. In addition, in Article 67 points 1–3, the first point discusses NESA,

which was commissioned to organise the implementation of the NE for primary and

29


secondary students, the second point focuses on the implementation of the NE, and

the third point explains how the implementation of the NE is regulated by the MONE.

3. Regulation of the Ministry of Education and Culture No. 66 Year 2013 was enacted

by the Minister in June 2013. In addition to revising the Regulation of the Ministry of

Education and Culture No. 20 Year 2007, in Article 1 points 1 and 2, this policy

focuses on the establishment of education assessment standards. This policy is

completed in the ANNEX as an elaboration of how this policy is going to be applied

(see the Appendix). The implementation of the NE is mentioned specifically in

Chapter VI Article 14.

4. The Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 97 Year 2013 focuses

on students’ graduation criteria and was issued in November 2013. It was issued by

The Education and Culture Minister and regulates the criteria for students’ graduation

in the educational unit and the organisation of school exams/madrasa/educational

equality and the NE.

3.3.2 Newspaper Articles

This study uses eight media articles that were published in The Jakarta Post and The

Globe, which are Indonesia’s national newspapers. Each article was chosen using the

purposive sampling method. To avoid the bias of media articles, this study also uses an article

that supports the implementation of the NE as standardised testing in Indonesia.

30


Chapter 4: Analysis and Findings

The analysis in this study involves three parts. The first part is analysing the policies

of The NE by implementing Fairclough’s framework. Second, analysing the newspaper

articles based on van Dijk’s framework, and the third is analysing the inter-dircursivity of the

policy texts.

4.1 Policies of The National Examination Project

By implementing the NE in 2003, the Indonesian government declared its

commitment to improving the quality of national education through national standardised

testing known as Ujian Nasional (NE). Policies regarding the NE have been issued and

revised every year until 2013. Thomas (2005) explained that policy texts could be entitled

discourse because they are ‘sites of struggles and negotiations over the construction of

competing and contradictory educational identities’. Further, as ‘a range of conversing

discourse’, educational policies are imbued with certain values, beliefs, practice and

educational identities that are conveyed to the education community and stakeholders

(Alford, 2005, cited in Lee Kean-Wah & Thang Siew Ming, 2010). Although no specific

policies have been issued for the NE, some educational policies have implied that the NE is

the most salient student assessment in the Indonesian education system.

Table 1 shows the educational policies which develop perspective of the importance

of the NE and how this standardised test achieves the intended national education objectives

mentioned in ACT No. 20 Year 2003 Article 3:

the national education aims to develop the capability, character and civilization of the

nation to enhance its intellectual capacity, and it aims to develop learners’ potential so

they become persons imbued with human values who are faithful and pious to the one

and only God; who possess morals and noble character; who are healthy,

31


knowledgeable, competent, creative and independent; and as citizens, are democratic

and responsible (translated and compiled by UNECSO 2010/2011).

Table 1.

Basis Law of the Implementation of the NE

Themes ACT No. 20 Year 2003National Education System

Government Regulation No. 32 Year 2013, amended to Government Regulation No. 19 Year 2005Standard National Education

Ministry Decree No. 66 Year 2013, revised to Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 20 Year 2007Education Assessment Standards

Ministry Decree No. 97 Year 2013School examination and NE at the primary and secondary levels

Intended goals of education systems

Article 3 ACT No. 20 Year 2003 in the considering part point 2

ACT No. 20 Year 2003 in the considering part as a basis law

ACT No. 20 Year 2003 in the considering part as a basis law

National education standards

Article 3.3. Article 3. 7

Article 1.1Article 2.1

ACT No. 20 Year 2003 in the considering part point 1

ACT No. 20 Year 2003 in the considering part point b

National assessment system

Article 1.21. Article 57.1. Article 57.2

Article 1.24–27 Government Regulation No. 32 Year 2013 as amendment to Government Regulation No. 19 Year 2005

Government Regulation No. 32 Year 2013 as amendment to Government Regulation No. 19 Year 2005

Competence standards

Article 35. 1. Article 1.5 Annex -

Procedure of students’ assessment

Article 58.1. Article 58.2

Article 67.1–3 Annex Chapter II.D.2

Graduation criteria

- Article 72.1 Annex Chapter II.E.2.h Chapter II. 2.d

NESA - Article 67.1–3 - Chapter VI.14 points 1 and 2. (as an NE organiser). Chapter VI points 3–7 (stakeholders of NE as implementers)

NE - Article 72.1.d Annex Chapter II.A.10, Chapter II.D.f, Chapter II.D.i and Chapter II.E.2.a.1

Chapter II.6.1.a (minimum threshold of NE subjects)Chapter II.6.1.b (final Grade)Chapter II.6.2

National examination goals

- - Annex Chapter II.E.2.a.2.

Chapter 1.1.5

32


These national education objectives will be achieved by the Indonesian education

system, which stated in ACT No. 20 Year 2003 Article 1 Verse 3 that the ‘National education

system is overall educational components which are interrelated in an integrated way in the

pursuit of national education objectives’. One of the planning strategies that the government

has undertaken in order to achieve the national education quality is the NE. The aims of the

NE are stated in Ministry Decree No. 66 Year 2013, Chapter II.E.3.a.2:

1. one of the requirements of students’ graduation from the educational unit

2. one of the considerations in being selected for the next education level

3. mapping education quality


This sequence has been arranged by the author because no specific set of policies has

been issued by the President and/or the Education Ministry regarding the NE.

Utilising the basis law and other policies, the MONE effectively developed a

perspective of the importance of the NE. The MONE rarely explains its reasons for changing

the policies of the NE, besides the national commitment to improve the quality and national

competitiveness by reregulating the graduate competency standards, material standards,

evaluation/assessment standards and the national curriculum. In particular, the government

has not explained why the NE must still be implemented in 2014, besides as a graduation

requirement of students.

By choosing specific lexicons to cohesively deliver the aims of the NE, such as

‘mapping’, ‘quality’, ‘guidance’ and ‘standard’, these policies have succeeded in naturalising

the NE as an important graduation requirement, even though its implementation still cannot

achieve the national education objectives—for example, one objective is ‘who possess morals

and noble character’. Imposing the NE in a nation as diverse as Indonesia can result in

students, teachers, schools and even provincial governments doing anything to help their

33


students pass the NE, including dishonourable actions such as mass cheating. Moreover,

fraudulent competition among major stakeholders at the city/district government and

provincial government levels has occurred so that schools can maintain their prestigious

position or show that they have improved their education quality, as the NE is also used for

‘mapping educational quality’ and ‘guidance and assistance for education quality

improvement’.

Likewise, for the objective of moral and noble characters, the NE cannot fully achieve

the national education objective to develop ‘competent, creative and independent’ students

because, according to Gardner’s theory of intelligence, every human has his or her own

maximum intelligence. As the NE emphasises testing in particular subjects, this encourages

students to master these subjects in order to achieve another objective (graduate from the

educational unit and progress to a higher educational level), and it lessens their creativity and

competency in other areas.

The national education objectives also mention that students ‘as citizens, are

democratic and responsible’. The NE not only tests particular subjects, but also provides

blueprints that are intended to help students and teachers in their NE preparation. These

blueprint functions are reversed and become a boundary for students to learning and

exploring knowledge. In addition, providing blueprint is against another national education

objective: ‘functions to develop the capability, character and civilization of the nation for

enhancing its intellectual capacity’ and enabling students to become ‘knowledgeable’.

Although Ministry Decree No. 66 Year 2013 as amendment to the Regulation of the

Minister of Education and Culture No. 20 Year 2007 had no significant changes regarding the

NE and its objectives, Ministry Regulation No. 97 Year 2013 stated that the NE is national

measurement and assessment for the attainment and achievement of national competency

standards in certain subjects. There are misconceptions regarding the NE in the Ministry

34


Decree, which was issued in the same year to regulate the national assessment standards. In

addition, local school exams that comprise students’ graduation scores were mentioned in

Ministry Decree No. 97, and its implementation is regulated in Ministry Decree No. 66 Year

2013. This means that both policies are intertwined. The composition of 40 per cent for

school exams, which comprises 70 per cent of the final school exam and 30 per cent from the

students’ report during their study showed the government’s attempt to include formative

assessment for every student before the NE. Further, the 70 per cent gained from the school

exam shows that the government tried to increase the value of local summative assessment as

a criterion of students’ graduation.

The implementation of the 2014 NE involved an entire level of the Indonesian

government, as mentioned in Ministry Decree No. 97 Year 2013 Chapter VI.14 points 1–7.

The MONE attempted to involve the stakeholders from the central government (the MONE

and NESA) to the district government (city/regency) all over Indonesia as the implementer,

with NESA as the organiser. In Chapter II.15 points 1–3, the MONE also tried to involve

higher educational units such as state universities in all provinces to supervise the NE

implementation. The government attempted to lessen the power by sharing the responsibility

with the other stakeholders; however, the MONE can still make an absolute decision

regarding the NE. The hegemony power that the government tried to maintain towards

national policies can be seen in its lexical choices, which can be categorised into: the aims of

the NE, the blueprint of the NE, the graduate criteria of the NE, and the sharing of

responsibility for the NE implementation, as stated in Ministry Decree No. 97 Year 2013.

The multiple uses of ‘to ensure the quality of national education’ and ‘mapping

education quality’ have triggered the belief that the NE is an absolute assessment that should

be followed by students and aggressively pursued because it is a prerequisite for the

graduation of secondary students, with the weight of 60 per cent from a passing grade (based

35


on Ministry Decree No. 97). Moreover, the aim of the NE to map the national education

system might not be appropriate if it only measures particular subjects, as mentioned in

Ministry Decree No. 97 Chapter 1 Article 1.5: ‘The national test is hereinafter referred to NE

as an activities and attainable standard of measurement and assessment of competence of

graduates nationally on a particular subject’.

4.2 Society’s Objection to the National Examination

The media news in both the spoken and written form has constructed the reality that

occurs in the community (Wodak, 2009, cited in Zifana, 2011). Mass media news involves

the particular author’s ideologies and understanding of social events (Van Dijk, 1993).

Richardson (2007, p. 15) stated that the language used in the media is formulated language

and tends to be biased. Zifana (2011) said that the language used is representative of the

media itself, which has hidden motivations and interests. Many articles published in the two

national newspapers have argued that the NE would not be an appropriate assessment tool for

measuring students’ outcomes because it causes psychological, social and economical

problems. Moreover, it would rather reinforce the tension and show a clear stratification of

students’ achievement gaps among regions.

Table 2.

Sources and newspaper articles (Full article can be found in Appendix 1)

Articles Authors Title Date Objectives of NEAfter

Before

1 Margareth Sembiring

The Indonesian national examination ujian nasional)? What is so wrong with it?

13 May 2013

‘Ineffectual in measuring and improving the quality of Indonesian education system’.‘Provides no measurement to morals and character development aspect of education’.‘The fate of their passing or failing the senior high school level is determined by the results of these six subjects’.

36


2 Nadya Natahadibrata & Margareth S. Aritonang

On Education Day, Minister apologizes for exam mess

3 May 2013

‘…the national examination as a graduation requirement over the past ten years did not play a significant role in improving education quality’.

3 Gordon LaForge

Stop corruption: Abolish the national exam

3 Dec 2013

‘it expects students from high schools with collapsing roofs in Maluku or Kalimantan to be as competent as those from state-of-the-art private classrooms in Jakarta and Surabaya’.

4 Nadya Natahdibrata

The national exam is a violation of children’s right

7 May 2013

‘The national exam, which serves as the only condition for graduation…’.‘They (KPAI) urged the government to provide them good quality teachers rather than focusing on setting a standard a graduation’.

5 Selvanathan Letters: The national Examination

6 May 2009

‘you can still be genius without having to pass the UN (NE)’.

6 Andreas D. Arditya

Only God knows

18 April 2011

‘spending more time waking up early, seeking additional tutorial sessions and consuming food supplements, students are prepared to do anything to pass the national examination’.

7 Nurfika Osman

99% pass rate for national exams

13 May 2013

‘it is unfair to determine graduation solely on one standardized test’.‘ all this is only victimizing the students, which is very sad’.

8 Nurrohman & Dindin Jamaluddin

National exam and educational development

27 March 2010

‘Grades play a significant role in our education and it leads students to become certificate oriented’.The support:‘only an education providing good evaluation, whatever it is named, for its learners can reach the heights of knowledge, societal acceptance’.

The objective of the NE as a graduation requirement was the main objection before

and after the 2013 educational policies were released. Since it was first implemented, the NE

has become the ‘dreaded test’ (LaForge, 12 December 2013) for students, parents and

37


schools. How society values the NE becomes clearer when the NE’s objectives within society

are analysed. The lexical choices of ‘ineffective’, ‘no significant’, ‘unfair’ and ‘injustice’

embody what society thinks about this objectives. It is conflicted with the use of lexicon

choices in the NE policies ‘mapping education quality’ and ‘to ensure the quality of national

education’ to show the importance of the NE. These lexical choices are used once in Ministry

Decree No. 66 Year 2013 Chapter II Part E. point 3.b.2 parts A–D, which point out that the

NE objectives in the policies have generated the perspective that the NE is an absolute

assessment and dreadful event. These lexicon choices show how the government views the

NE.

Conversely, the lexical choices that are written in the selected articles show how

society views the NE:

‘some students regard the UN (NE) as a stumbling block that needs to be overcome’

(Sembiring, 13 May 2013).

‘the national examination as a graduation requirement over the past ten years did not

play a significant role in improving education quality’ (Retno, cited in Natahadibrata,

3 May 2013).

‘But for cheating, teachers and administrators don’t deserve the brunt of the blame.

The pernicious national exam does’ (LaForge, 12 December 2013).

‘The national examination is structural violence against children’ (Badriyah, cited

in Natahadibrata, 7 May 2013).

‘…mass prayer held by their school in anticipation of the national exam scheduled

for Monday’ (Arditya, 18 April 2011).

‘…it was unfair to determine graduation solely on one standardized exam when the

quality of teaching varied from region to region’ (Osman, 13 May 2011).

38


‘The national exam the spirit of educations a formalization process, a setback and

degrades’ (the argument of the opponent of NE cited in Nurrohman & Jamalludin, 20

March 2010).

Nurrohman and Jamalludin (2010) stated that the NE has improved Indonesia’s

human development index; conversely, Natahadibrata’s article in May 2013 stated that

Indonesia was ranked 40 out 40 in terms of cognitive skills and educational attainment.

However, instead of finding ways to facilitate society’s objection, which is supported by the

valid data (Natahadibrata, 2013), the recent policies only shifted the national students’

assessment method without changing the aims of the NE. However, some supporting voices

have mostly been silenced, as the negative effects of the NE have been more severe.

Figure 1. Reasons for rejecting the NE from the eight articles used in this study

Figure 1 shows the negative effects of the NE taken from the eight newspaper articles

used in this study. The negative effects are drawn from society’s objections. It shows that

students’ behaviour is the main reason why society rejects the implementation of the NE

Students' behaviour

26%

Teacher' behaviour11%

Political reasons16%

Social effects16%

NE values21%

Students' parents11%

The Negative Effects of NE

39


before and after the recent policies were issued. Students tend to be more stressed,

unconfident and fragile before and after the NE. Second, society rejects NE because it is used

for students’ graduation requirements. Social effects, political reasons, teachers’ behaviour

and students’ parents’ reactions were also burdened by the NE because they have to provide

more funds to prepare their children to face the NE.

In relation to comparative negative effects before and after the newest policies were

released, general themes have been used to represent certain effects that occurred in specific

educational stakeholder and/or units. Students’ behaviour is used to describe the

psychological effects that occurred in students, which are divided into three main codes:

cheating, disrespect and stress. They included lexical choices such as:

‘There have always been serious concern over the rampant practice of cheating

among students…’ (Sembiring, 13 May 2013).

‘When he threatened to punish them they just laughed in his face’ (LaForge, 12

December 2013).

‘…national examinations (ujian nasional) which stress students, teacher, and school

principals alike. They are so depresses that they want to pass it by hook or by crook’

(Selvanathan, 6 May 2009).

‘Students are prepared to do anything to pass the national examination’ (Arditya, 18

April 2011).

It is important to note that in 2011, the MONE changed the final grade composition

from national exam results (60 per cent) and school exam (40 per cent). For the 2014 NE, the

MONE formulated the composition of the final grades from the school exam (70 per cent)

and from the students’ report and final school exam (30 per cent). However, changing the

composition of the graduation requirement was followed by a policy that there would be no

remedial exam offered in 2014. Instead of questioning the effectiveness of the NE, changing

40


the graduation composition is apparently just as pervasive, as there is no substantial change in

the objectives of the NE, which can be seen in Ministry Decree No. 97 Year 2013 Chapter

2.2.d., which states that students can graduate from the educational unit if they fulfil four

points, where point d is to pass the NE.

4.3 Inter-discursivity in Policy Texts

Inter-discursivity analysis ‘works both paradigmatically in identifying which genres

and discourses are drawn upon in a text, and syntagmatically in analysing how they worked

together through the text’ (Fairclough, 2001, p. 241). The MONE’s aim since the beginning

of the NE implementation as standardised testing in 2003 seems to be pointed out directly to

the educational community—particularly students, teachers, principals, district/city

stakeholders, higher education units and NESA as the agency to maintain the national

education quality. This is needed to establish the NE as national standardised testing and the

‘national educational quality tool’.

The recent policies have been issued and written persuasively as a message from

MONE explaining why NE still needed to be implemented in 2014 and maintains the main

aims of NE as a determiner of graduation requirement of primary and secondary students. It

can be seen in Government Regulation No. 32 Year 2013 Article 72.1.4 as an amendment to

Government Regulations No. 19 Year 2005 relating to National Education Standards. These

aims state that students complete their primary and/or secondary schooling if they pass the

NE. Following on from this policy, the MONE issued two other policies in 2013 that regulate

education standard evaluations (Ministry Regulation No. 66) and students’ graduation criteria

(Ministry Regulation No. 97), which are interwoven around the notion of a ‘students’

graduation standard’, with a focus on improving national education quality.

In Ministry Regulation No. 66 Chapter II.A.10:

41


The National Examination, hereinafter called the NE, is an evaluation activity that

aims to achieve certain competencies of learners in order to assess the achievement of

the National Education Standards, which are implemented nationally.

The italicised words in this policy explain that, in addition to being a national

evaluation to assess certain competencies of students, the NE is also applied as a national

evaluation to assess the achievement of the national education standards. The imposing of

‘Guaranteeing of national educational system’ is a major theme of the NE document that the

MONE implemented in the 2014 NE as a standard national evaluation. The privileged status

of the NE is also supported by four main objectives, which are pointed out in Ministry

Regulation No. 66 Year 2013 Chapter II Part E. point 3.b.2 parts A–D. The NE is used for:

1. one of the requirements of students’ graduation from the educational unit

2. one of the considerations in being selected for the next education level

3. educational quality mapping


In addition, Ministry Regulation No. 97 Chapter 1 General Rules Article 1.5 points

out that ‘The national test is hereinafter referred to NE as the activities of attainable standard

of measurement and assessment of competence of graduates nationally on a particular

subject’.

These three documents restate the importance of the NE as a national standard

evaluation to guarantee national educational standards. However, the NE’s role as the sole

determiner of the graduation requirements of primary and secondary students has changed

significantly, as mentioned in Government Regulation No. 32 Year 2013 Article 72 point 1,

and in Ministry Decree No. 97 Chapter II Article 2:

Students are considered to have completed their study in primary and secondary

schooling if they have:

42


1. completed all learning programs

2. achieved the final minimal grade for all learning subjects

3. passed the exam school/Madrasah

4. passed the NE.

However, this does not lessen the government’s intention to use the NE as the

standard tool to map the national educational quality mentioned in Ministry Regulation No.

66 Year 2013 Chapter II. Part E. 3.5: ‘To use the NE to map the quality of programs and/or

educational units, government analyses and maps the absorption NE, and reports the NE

results to interested stakeholders’. It is also supported by Ministry Regulation No. 97 Year

2013 Chapter VI Article 21: ‘The Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of

Indonesia maps the NE at the school/madrasah, district/city, provincial and national level’.

Along with ‘improving national educational quality’ and ‘mapping national

educational quality’, there are unfair graduation requirements. Based on Ministry Regulation

No. 97. Chapter II Article 5. 2, the school and/or educational unit decides the minimum grade

of the school assessment, with a weight of 40 per cent of the final grade. Students’ final

grades are formulated from 40 per cent of the school’s independent evaluation and 60 per

cent of the NE (based on Ministry Regulation No. 97 Chapter 2 Article 6.2). In a nation as

diverse as Indonesia, 60 per cent is still a large number for a standardised threshold.

However, the government has provided a ‘blueprint’, which was regulated based on Ministry

Regulation No. 97 Year 2013 Chapter 1 Article 1.14:

The blueprint of the national exam is a reference to the development and assembly of

the national exam, which is based on Standards of Competence and Basic

Competency in the Basic Content standards of primary and secondary education.

This is another theme that is evident in the government’s effort to naturalise the NE.

Act No. 20 Year 2003, about the national education system, clearly outlines that the main

43


objective of education in Indonesia is to develop the learner’s potential to become

knowledgeable, competent, creative and independent. This is unsurprising given that the

government tried to achieve the national education objectives by measuring certain subjects

and skills, which are outlined in the blueprint.

44


Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion

The NE has been controversial since the beginning of its implementation in 2003.

Although the MONE has made an effort to strike a balance between formative (students’

report) and summative assessment (school assessment and the NE) in students’ final grades, it

is still heavily weighted towards its function as a high-stakes assessment. The results of this

study indicate that only part of the newest education policies’ contents could considered to

achieve a national education system. It caused significant concerns where the evaluation,

which was intended to be used as an indicator of national education quality, has not fully

functioned. The objectives of the NE, which are being fully comprehended by society, are the

sole graduation requirements. It is indicated by the objections still focusing on the graduation

criterion role of the NE, which also play a role in how public opinion is formed and

constrained regarding the NE. In contrast, the government has changed the policy so that the

NE is not the sole determinant of graduation for students.

The objections towards the NE, which are centred on students’ behaviour, should be a

warning to the MONE. Education means to educate a student, as stated in ACT No. 20 Year

2003 Article 3: ‘the national education functions to develop the capability, character and

civilisation of the nation for enhancing its intellectual capacity’, and it ‘is aimed at

developing learners’ potential so that they become persons imbued with human values who

are faithful and pious to the one and only God; who possess morals and noble character; who

are healthy, knowledgeable, competent, creative and independent; and as citizens, are

democratic and responsible’ (translated and compiled by UNECSO, 2010/2011). Conversely,

the MONE should provide clear strategic planning to help achieve these national education

objectives.

45


Thus, considering that the recent policies and society’s objections towards the NE as

the national standard assessment, by imposing the implementation of the NE in 2014, the

government became inconsistent and incompatible regarding the national education goals that

are stipulated in Act No. 20 Year 2003 about the national education system. While pointing

out its commitment to improving the quality of the Indonesian education system, the planning

strategies for implementation outlined in the NE policy documents do not appear to be

consistent with the national educational objectives.

5.2 Recommendations

As a large and diverse country, Indonesia might still need a standardised test to

measure improvements in the national educational system, which might be more appropriate

in the form of a diagnostic test rather than criterion-referenced tests. William (2010, p. 107)

stated that there are three common classifications of tests based on the purpose and need of

the stakeholders who are involved in diagnostic tests, norm-referenced tests and criterion-

referenced tests. The most suitable test for Indonesian students is not the criterion-referenced

test but the diagnostic test, which can narrow the gap between students who live in rural areas

and the city; moreover, this type of test could encourage students without burdening them.

However, further research might be needed to see whether the appropriateness of diagnostic

test to be implemented in Indonesia.

As the largest stakeholder in the national educational hierarchy system, the MONE

should provide clear strategic planning on the implementation of policies to society.

Conversely, society’s evaluation regarding education policies might become a trustworthy

resource for the MONE to improve, reconceptualise and revise its policies—moreover the

policies that directly affect students.

This study might not provide sufficient information on society’s perspective towards

the recent policies; thus, further research is recommended.

46


References

A Liquid Future. (2014). Indonesia’s education system is one of the worst in the world

according to a recent report. Retrieved from

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2013/02/201321965257154992.html.

Afrianto. (2011). A study of a wash-back of the high-stakes national examination (UN) for

students in Indonesian secondary schools. In New Direction: Assessment and

Evaluation Symposium. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 6-8 July 2011. Retrieved from

http://www.britishcouncil.org/it/downloads-list-of-presentation-afrianto.pdf. .

Aljazeera. (2013, 27 February). Educating Indonesia: 101 East investigates why Indonesia’s

education system is one of the worst in the world. Retrieved from

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2013/02/201321965257154992.html

Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (ACDP). (2013). assessing student

learning: Policy options relating to national assessments, public examinations,

international assessments, and continuous classroom assessment. Policy Issued.

Retrieved from

http://www.acdp-indonesia.org/docs/ACDP_Policy_Issue_Assessing_Student_Learni

ng.pdf.

Alagumalai, S. (2005). Can we trust our teachers, their tools and techniques? Paper presented

at the 32nd Annual Conference of the International Association for Educational

Assessment, 21–26 May, Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board, Singapore.

Anderson, P. & Morgan, G. (2008). Developing tests and questionnaires for national

assessment of educational achievement. In V. Greaney & T. Kellaghan (Eds.).

National assessment of educational achievement (Vols. 1–2). Washington, DC: World

Bank Publications. DOI:10.1596/978-0-8213-7497-9

Antinou, P. & James, M. (2013). Exploring formative assessment in primary school

classrooms: Developing a framework of actions and strategies. Educational

Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(2), 153–176. doi:10.1007/s11092-013-

9188-4

Australian Capital Territory Government. (2011). Teachers’ guide to assessment. Retrieved

from

47

http://www.acdp-indonesia.org/docs/ACDP_Policy_Issue_Assessing_Student_Learning.pdf

http://www.acdp-indonesia.org/docs/ACDP_Policy_Issue_Assessing_Student_Learning.pdf

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2013/02/201321965257154992.html


http://www.det.act.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0011/297182/teacher_Guide_to_Asse

ssment_web.pdf

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014). NAPLAN. Retrieved

from http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/naplan.html

Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse:

Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 45–57.

doi:10.1080/01596300050005493.

Badan Standard Nasional Pendidikan. (2013). Peraturan Badan Nasional Pendidkan Nomor:

00022/P/BSNP/XI/2013. Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik

Indonesia, Jakarta. [In Indonesian].

Badan Standard Nasional Pendidikan. (2014). Tentang BNSP. Retrieved from http://bsnp-

indonesia.org/id/?page_id=32

Ball, S. J. (2006). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the

Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. doi:10.1080/0159630930130203

Berg, L. D. (2009). Discourse analysis. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International

encyclopedia of human geography (Vol. 3, pp. 215–221). Oxford: Elsevier.

Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: A role for summative assessment?

Assessment in Education, 5(1), 103–110. doi:10.1080/0969595980050106

Black, P. & William, D. (2006). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.

doi:10.1080/0969595980050102

Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. (2007). The practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction.

London: Hodder Arnold.

Cauley, K. M. & McMillian, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support

student motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational

Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1–6. doi:10.1080/00098650903267784

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2008). Assessment for learning: Formative

assessment. Retrieved from https://www1.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf

Chen, Q., May, L., Klenowski, V., & Kettle, M. (2013). The enactment of formative

assessment in English language classroom in two Chinese universities: Teacher and

student responses. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 21(3),

271–285. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2013.790308

Chouliaraki, L. (2008). Discourse analysis. in Bennett, T; Frow, J. (eds.), The SAGE

handbook of cultural analysis. London, UK : SAGE Publications, 2008, pp. 674-698.

48


Codd, J. A. (1988). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy documents.

Journal of Educational Policy, 3(3), 235–247. doi:10.1080/0268093880030303

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2005). OECD study on enhancing learning

through formative assessment and the expansion of teacher repertoires. Retrieved

from

http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/publications/Attachment/78/OECD_Formative.en.pdf

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2009a). Mendiknas: UN tetap jalan. Retrieved from

http://www.depdiknas.go.id/content.php?content=file_detailberita&KD=759 [In

Indonesian].

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2009b). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional no. 75

tahun 2009. Retrieved from http://www.depdiknas.go.id [In Indonesian].

Dwyer, C. A. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: Theory and practise. Assessment

in Education, 5(1), 131–137. doi:10.1080/0969595980050109

Edmund, W., Gordon Michael, V., McGill, D., Iceman, S., Kelley, M., Kalinich J. W., &

Pellegrino, M. C. (2014). Bringing formative classroom assessment to schools and

making it count. Quality Assurance in Education, 22(4), 1–32. doi:10.1108/QAE-07-

2014-0034

Eisner, E. W. (1993). Reshaping assessment in education: Some criteria in search of practice.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 219–233. doi:10.1080/0022027930250302

Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within

discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193–217.

doi:10.1177/0957926592003002004

Fairclough, N. (1992b). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and

Education, 4(3–4), 269–293. doi:10.1016/0898-5898(92)90004-G

Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of new labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M.

Wetherall, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp.

229–246). London: Sage/Open University.

Greaney, V. & Kellaghan, T. (2008). Assessing national achievement levels in education:

National assessments of educational achievement (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: World

Bank Publications. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/assessing_national_achievement_level_Edu

.pdf

Gwang-Jo, K. (2013). Examination systems [foreword]. Asia-Pacific secondary education

system review series no. 1. Thailand: United Nations Educational, Scientific and

49

http://www.depdiknas.go.id/


Cultural Organisation. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001878/187826E.pdf

Hamad, I. (2004). Kostruksi realitas politik dalam media massa (studi pesan politik dalam

media cetak pada masa pemilu 1999). Makara. Sosial Humaniora, 8(1). Jakarta:

Granit. [In Indonesian].

Hammersley, M. (1997). On the foundations of critical discourse analysis. Language and

Communication, 17(3), 237–248. doi:10.1016/S0271-5309(97)00013-X

Har, Y. B. (2009). Challenging mathematics in primary school national examination in

Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.amt.edu.au/pdf/icmis16psinyeap.pdf

Harlen, W. & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships

between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles,

Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365–379. doi:10.1080/0969594970040304

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,

77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487

Hill, P. (2013). Examination systems. Asia-Pacific secondary education system review series

no. 1. Thailand: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001878/187826E.pdf

Jalal, M. (2014). Praktik Diskursif ‘The Theory of Truth’ Michel Foucault dalam Konstruksi

Simbolisasi Bahasa di Indonesia. Jurusan Sastra Indonesia Fakultas Sastra Universitas

Airlangga, Surabaya. Retrieved from http://journal.unair.ac.id/filerPDF/Praktik

%20Diskursif.pdf

Johnson, E. & Jenkins, J. (2003). Formative and summative assessment. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article.formative-and-summative-assessment/#B

Kellaghan, T. (2004). Public examinations, national and international assessments, and

educational policy. Dublin: Educational Research Centre, St Patrick’s College.

Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPSEIA/Resources/paper_Kellaghan.pdf

Kellaghan, T., Greaney, V., & Murray, T. S. (2009). Using the results of a national

assessment of educational achievement. In National assessment of educational

achievement (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/National_assessment_Vol5.pdf

Kendall, G. (2007). What is critical discourse analysis? Ruth Wodak in Conversation with

Gavin Kendall. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 29. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-29-e.htm

50


Kurniawati, D. (2013, 9 December). Despite being ranked as the happiest, Indonesian

students score poorly in PISA tests. The Establishment Post. Retrieved from http://www.establishmentpost.com/despite-being-ranked-as-the-happiest-indonesian-students-

scores-poorly-in-pisa-tests/

Kean-Wah, L & Ming, T.S. . (2010). A critical discourse analysis of the Malaysian smart

schools (MSS) conceptual blueprint and implication to implementation. International

Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30, 142–154.

Luke, A. (1995–1996). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse

analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3–48. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1167278?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104590227967

Mailizar. (2013, 6 December). PISA 2013: Lesson for Indonesia. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved

from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/12/06/pisa-2013-lessons-indonesia.html

McIntyre, M., Francis, K., & Chapman. Y. (2011). Critical discourse analysis: Understanding

change in maternity services. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 18, 36–43.

doi:10.1111/j.1440-172X.2011.01991.x

Ministry of Education. (2004). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia nomor 20 Tahun 2003

Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional. Kementrian Pendidikan Republik Indonesia,

Jakarta. [In Indonesian].

Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013a). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Republik Indonesia Tentang Kriteria Kelulusan Peserta Didik dari Satuan Pendidikan

dan Penyelenggaraan Ujian Sekolah/Madrasah/pendidikan Kesetaraan dan Ujian

Nasional. Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia, Jakarta. [In

Indonesian].

Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013b). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia nomor

32 Tahun 2013 Tentang Perubahan atas Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 19 Tahun 2005

Tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan. Kementrian Pendidikan dan Budaya Republik

Indonesia, Jakarta. [In Indonesian].

Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013c). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia nomor

66 Tahun 2013 . Standar Penilaian Pendidikan. Kementrian Pendidikan dan Budaya

Republik Indonesia, Jakarta. [In Indonesian].

Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013d). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia nomor

97 Tahun 2013. Kriteria Kelulusan Peserta Didik Dari Satuan Pendidikan Dan

Penyelenggaraan Ujian Sekolah/Madrasah/Pendidikan Kesetaraan Dan Ujian

51


Nasional. Kementrian Pendidikan dan Budaya Republik Indonesia, Jakarta. [In

Indonesian].

Morgan, W. & Taylor, S. (2005). Interrogating critical discourse analysis for educational

research in new spaces and places. Melbourne Studies in Education, 46(2), 1–8.

doi:10.1080/17508480509556421

Murtiana, R. (2011, July). Rethinking the national examination: Is a uniform assessment

effective for diverse students in Indonesia? Paper presented at the Indonesian Student

International Conference: Thinking of Home While Away, 16–18 July, Melbourne,

Australia.

Nasional, O. K. T. P., Umum, U., Internasional, P., & Menerus, P. K. T. (2013). Menilai

Pembelajaran Murid. Policy. [In Indonesian].

Nasution, E. (2011). Kajian PP No. 19 Tahun 2005 tentang Penyelenggaram UN dan

implementasi {Peraturan Mentri Pendidikan Nasional no. 45 dan 46 Tahun 2010.

Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated

learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher

Education, 31(2), 100–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090

Nurrohman & Jamaluddin, D. (2010, 27 March). National exam and educational

development. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/03/27/national-exam-and-educational-

development.html

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). PISA 2012 results in

focus. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-

overview.pdf

Postlethwaite, T. N. & Kellaghan, T. (2008). National assessments of educational

achievement. Education Policy Series. International Academy of Education.

UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesco.atlasproject.eu/unesco/file/c04ee1f8-454c-407b-

ad96-50a797631751/c8c7fe00-c770-11e1-9b21-0800200c9a66/181753e.pdf

Rahimi, F. & Riasati, M. J. (2011). Critical discourse analysis: Scrutinising ideologically-

driven discourses. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(16),

108–112. Retrieved from http://www.sciencepub.net/report/report0607/011_6800report060714_77_81.pdf

Richard, J. F. & Godbout, P. (2000). Formative assessment as an integral part of the

teaching–learning process. Physical and Health Education Journal, 66(3), 4–13.

52


Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspaper: An approach from critical discourse

analysis. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Seleksi Bersama Masuk Perguruan Tinggi Negeri 2014. (2014). Kelompok dan materi ujian,

Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from http://www.sbmptn.or.id/?mid=13#a5. [In Indonesian].

Sembiring, M. (2013). The Indonesian national examinations (Ujian Nasional): What is so

wrong with it? Retrieved from http://www.globalindonesianvoices.com/6663/the-

indonesian-national-examinations-ujian-nasional-what-is-so-wrong-with-it/

Shiel, G., Kellaghan, T., & Moran, G. (2010). Standardised testing in lower secondary

education. Retrieved from http://www.ncca.ie/en/publications/reports/standardised_testing_in_lowersecondary_educatio

n.pdf

Shute, V. J. & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Formative and stealth assessment. In J. M. Spector, M. D.

Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational

communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 311–321). New York, NY: Springer.

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for leaning. Phi Delta

Kappan, 83(10), 758–765.

Subkhan, E. (2013). Sekilas analisis kebijakan pendidikan. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/5253913/Mengenal_Singkat_Analisis_Kebijakan_Pendidikan [In

Indonesian].

Suryadi, B. (2013). Evaluasi penyelenggaran ujian nasional tahun 2013. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/4599766/Evaluasi_Penyelenggaraan_Ujian_Nasional_Tahun_201

3_Bambang_Suryadi_. [In Indonesian].

Suryani, L. D. & Erviani, N. K. (2014). Governor, ombudsman slam national exams.

Retrieved from http://www.thebalidaily.com/2014-05-09/governor-ombudsman-slam-

national-exams.html

Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433–449.

doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838

Syahril, I. (2007). Standardised testing in Indonesian secondary education: An analysis on the

impact of national exit exam (2005–2007). Electronic Thesis. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: Using critical

discourse analysis. Journal of Educational Policy, 19(4), 433–451.

doi:10.1080/0268093042000227483

53


Thomas, S. A. (2005). The construction of teacher identities in educational policy documents:

A critical discourse analysis. Critical Studies in Education, 46(2), 25–44. Retrieved

from http://www98.griffith.ed.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/4208/1/31439.pdf

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945. Retrieved from

http://www.dpr.go.id/id/uu-dan-ruu/uud45. [In Indonesian].

Van Dijk. T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2),

249–283. doi:10.1177/0957926593004002006

William, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment,

11(3–4), 283–289. doi:10.1080/10627197.9652993

William, D. (2010). Standardised testing and school accountability. Educational

Psychologist, 45(2), 10–122. doi:10.1080/00461521003703060

William, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teacher developing assessment for

learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 49–65.

doi:10.1080/0969594042000208994

Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2002). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage

Publications. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/lib/adelaide/reader.action?

docID=10080947&ppg=22

Wu, J. (2011). Understanding interdiscursivity: A pragmatic model. Journal of Cambridge

Studies, 6(2–3), 95–115.

Youl-Kwan, S. & Mi Ok, K. (2012). The cultural politics of national testing and test result

release policy in South Korea: A critical discourse analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of

Education, 32(1), 53–73. doi:10.1080/02188791.2011.621691

Zifana, M. (2011). Representasi pihak pro dan kontra pemilihan gubernur Daerah Istimewa

Yogyakarta dalam pemberitaan harian umum Media Indonesia. In Konferensi

International Masyarakat Linguistik Indonesia 2011. [In Indonesian].

54


APPENDICES

Appendix 1

INDONESIAN NATIONAL EXAMINATION POLICIES

1945 Constitution of Indonesia, Article 31 Education

Point. 1. Each and Every citizen shall have the Fundamental right to

education

Point. 2. Government establish and conduct a national education system,

which is regulated by the Law

Act Number 20 Year 2003 National Education System Article 1

Point. 1. Education means conscious and well-planned effort in creating

a learning environment and learning process that learners will

be able to develop their full potential for acquiring spiritual and

religious strengths, develop self-control, personality,

intelligence, morals and noble character and skills that one

needs for him/herself, for the community, for the nation, and for

the state.

Point. 3. National Education system is overall educational components

which are interrelated in an integrated way in the pursuit of

national education objectives.

Point. 17. National Education Standards mean the minimum criteria

about the education system in whole jurisdiction of the Republic

of Indonesia.

Point. 21. Educational evaluation is control activities, guarantee, and the

determination of the education quality of the various education

components at every path, level, and type of education as a

form of the accountability of education

Article 3 The national education functions to develop the capability,

character, and civilization of the nation for enhancing its

intellectual capacity, and is aimed at developing learner’s

potential so that they become persons imbued with human

values who are faithful and pious to one and only God; who

55


possess morals and noble character; who are healthy,

knowledgeable, competent, creative, independent; and as

citizen, are democratic and responsible (translated and

compiled by UNECSO 202010/2011).

Article 35. Point. 1. National education standards consist of the standard of the

contents, process, graduate outcomes, educational personnel,

facilities and equipment, management, funding, and educational

assessment, which should be improved systematically and

regularly.

Article 57Point. 1. Evaluation shall be undertaken to monitor and control the quality

of education nationally, as a form of public accountability of

providers of education in relation to stakeholders.

Point. 2. Evaluation shall be made of learners’ achievement, institutions,

and education programmes in formal education and non-formal

education at all levels, units, and types of education.

Article 58Point. 1. Evaluation of learners’ achievement conducted by educators

shall be made to monitor the process, progress, and to improve

learners’ learning outcome continually.

Point. 2. Evaluation of learners’ achievement, of institutions, and of

educational programmes shall be conducted by independent

bodies regularly, comprehensively, transparently, and

systematically in order to assess the achievements of national

education standards.

Government regulations Number 32 Year 2013 as amendment to Government Regulations number 19 Year 2005. About National Education Standards.

Article . 1.

Point 5. Competency standards are the criteria for qualifying graduate

capabilities that include attitude, knowledge, and skills.

Point 24. Assessment is the process of collecting and processing

information to measure the achievement of students’ learning

outcomes.

56


Point 25. Educational evaluation is control activities, guarantee, and the

determination of the education quality of the various education

components at every path, level, and type of education as a

form of the accountability of education.

Point 26. Testing is the process which is undertaken to measure the

achievement of students competencies in the ongoing learning

process, to monitor the progress and improvement of students

learning outcomes.

Point 27. Exams are the activities which is undertaken to measure the

students competencies achievement to acknowledge the

learning achievement and/or the completion from educational

level/unit.

Article . 67

Point. 1. The government commissioned BSNP (National Education

Standards Agency) to organize National Examination which are

followed by student at any educational formal primary and

secondary education equality and non-formal pathways

Point 2. In the implementation of the National Examination, BSNP

cooperate with relevant agencies in the Government,

Provincial government, District/ City Government and other

education units.

Point. 3. Provisions on National Examination are further regulated by the

regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture.

Article. 72

Point 1. Students are stated has completing their study from the primary

and secondary schooling, if:

a. Completing all the learning programs;

b. Achieving the final minimal grade for all the learning subjects

c. Pass the exam school/madrasah

d. Pass the national examination

Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture Number 66 Year 2013 Education Assessment Standards as revising to Regulation of the Minister of education and Culture Number 20 Year 2007. About Educational Assessment Standards.

Article 1.

57


Point 1. Assessment of students learning outcomes in primary and

secondary level are implemented based on educational

standard assessment which applied nationally.

Point 2. The standards of educational assessment as referred to Point

1 are listed in the Annex as an integral part of this regulation.

Copy Annex regulation of The Minister of education and Culture Republic of Indonesia Number 66 Year 2013 about Education assessment Standard.

Chapter II. Part A. Definitions

Point. 10: National Examination hereinafter called the NE is an

evaluation activity that measures certain competencies of

learners in order to assess the achievement of the National

Education Standards which is implemented nationally.

Part D. Mechanisms and Assessment Procedure

Point. 2: Learning outcomes assessment is done in the form of authentic

assessment, self-assessment, project assessment, daily tests,

midterm test, and the final test in the end of the semester, the level

of competence examination, the quality level of competency exams,

school examinations, and national examinations.Point f:

Competency level examination is conducted by the

education unit at the end of second grade (level 1),

grade IV (level 2), a class VIII (level 4), and the class

XI (level 5), with the blueprint which are compiled by

the Government. Competence level examination at

the end of sixth grade (level 3), a class IX (level 4A),

and class XII (level 6) is done through the national

examinations.

Point i:

National Examination conducted by the Government

in accordance with regulation.

Point. 5:

58


National examinations carried out according to the procedures

which are set out in the Standard Operating Procedures (POS).

Part E. Implementation and Reporting AssessmentPoint. 2: Implementation and Reporting Assessment by

Educational UnitAssessment of learning outcomes by education unit conducted

to assess achievement of the competence of graduate students

includes as follows:

Point h:

The graduation of students of the educational unit

determine through educators council meeting in

accordance with the following criteria:

1). complete the entire program of learning;

2). achieve the required level of competence, with

competency provisions attitude (spiritual and

social), including both categories of knowledge

and skills and competencies KKM at least equal

to a predetermined;

3). passed on the final exam schools / madrasah; and

4). passed on the National Examination.

Point. 3: Implementation and Assessment Reporting by Government

Assessment of learning outcomes by the Government

through the National examination and the

quality level of competence evaluation, followed

by:

Point a: National Examination.

1. Assessment of learning outcomes in the form of NE

supported by a system that guarantees quality and

confidentiality problems as well as the

implementation of a safe, honest, and fair.

2. The NE is used for:

A. One of the requirements students’ graduation

from educational unit;

59


B. One of the considerations in the selection to the

next education level;

C. Quality mapping; and

D. Guidance and assistance for the education

quality improvement.

3. In order to standardize the examination required

baseline of national grid developed by the

Government, because while drafted by the Central

Government and / or Local Government with a

certain composition is determined by the

Government.

4. As one of the determinants of graduation of

students of the educational unit, graduation criteria

set by the Government each year.

5. In order to use the NE as the mapping of the quality

of programs and / or educational unit, the

Government analyses and makes maps absorption

NE and communicate the results to interested

parties.

Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture Number 97 Year 2013.About Students’ graduation criteria from the education units and the implementation of school/madrasah/ educational equality examination and the National Examinations.

Set:

The education and culture minister rules on criteria graduation of students of

the educational unit and the organization of school exams / madrasa / educational

equality and the National Examination.

Chapter 1. General Rules

Article 1.

Point 5. The national test is hereinafter referred to NE activities attainable

standard of measurement and assessment of competence of

graduates nationally on a particular subject.

Point 9. National test scores hereinafter called NE is the scores which

students obtained from the national exam.

60


Point 10. National Education Standards Agency, hereinafter referred to

BSNP are independent and independent organization which

organize the national exam.

Point 14. The blue print of national exam is a reference in the development

and assembly of the national exam which is based on Standards

of Competence and Basic Competency in the Basic Content

standards of primary and secondary education.

Point 17. Standard Operating Procedure, hereinafter referred to SOP is a

sequence of procedures that set as the standard of technical

implementation of the national test and exam S / M / PK which are

set by the National Education Standards.

Chapter II: Criteria graduation of students of the educational unit

Article 2:

Students graduated from educational unit after:

a. complete the entire program of learning;

b. obtain the minimum scores either at the final assessment for all subjects;

c. pass the school examination S / M / PK; and

d. pass the national examination

Article 6:

(1) Criteria for graduation of students for the National Examination (UN)

SMP / MTs / SMPLB,SMA / MA / SMALB / SMK / MAK, Program

Package B / Wustha, Program Package C, and Package C

Vocational programs are:

a. Final scores each subject which are tested in the national

examination, the lowest scores is 4.0 (four point zero); and

b. The average scores for all subjects in the lowest final

obtained scores is 5.5 (five point five).

(2) Final Obtained score is the combined value of S / M / PK and UN

Rated 40% by weight of Value S / M / OD and 60% Value UN.

Chapter VI. Implementation of the National Examination.

Article 14.

(1) BSNP organized NE in collaboration with the relevant agencies in the

Government, Provincial Government, District / City Government, and the

unit

education.

61


(2) BSNP is appointed as NE organizer:

a. develop national examination standard operating procedure;

b. make recommendations to the Minister on the establishment of

Implementing NE Central level; and

c. evaluate and make recommendations for implementation of NE

improvement.

(3) Implementing NE central level stipulated by the Decree of the Minister

and NE accountable to the Operator.

(4) Implementing the NE established by the Decision of Provincial Governor

and Implementing NE accountable to the central level.

(5) Implementing NE District / City Level set by the Decree of the Regent /

Mayor The city and is responsible to the NE Implementing the Provincial

Level.

(6) Implementing NE Education Unit set by the Decree of the Head

Department of Education District / City and is responsible to the Executing

NE

District / city level.

(7) Implementing NE Central Level, the implementing of NE in the Provincial

Level, Executive Level NE District / City, and Executive Education Unit NE

has the duty and responsibility for implementing the UN in accordance

with the Regulation of the Minister and SOP NE.

Article 17.

Subjects which tested in the NE are stipulated in the SOP of national

examination which are set by the National Education Standards Agency

(BSNP).

Article 21.

Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia mapped

the NE at the level of school / madrasah, district / city, provincial, and

national.

Article 23.

Points:

(3) The text to the UN selected from a question bank in accordance with the

UN grille and analyzed by a team of experts that has been set by the

National Education Standards Agency.

(4) The text to the UN before use is classified as a state document

62


Appendix 2

NEWSPAPERS ARTICLES

After or within the new policies are issued

1. http://www.globalindonesianvoices.com/6663/the-indonesian-national-examinations-ujian-nasional-what-is-so-wrong-with-it/

The Indonesian National Examinations (Ujian Nasional): What is So Wrong with It?

Posted On 13 May 2013 By : Margareth Sembiring

Comment: 1

Tag: National Examination, Ujian Nasional, UN

This year’s 2nd of May National Education Day (Hari Pendidikan Nasional or Hardiknas) was celebrated against the backdrop of recent

National Examinations (Ujian Nasional or UN) fiasco. The senior high school-level UN that was scheduled on 15 April 2013 was marred with

logistical problems that forced schools in 11 provinces in Indonesia to delay the start of the examinations. The required amount of

examination scripts in affected provinces were not delivered in time; and this has resulted in schools having to photocopy sets of examination

scripts on their own before they could commence the tests.

Should the National Examination be abolished? The National Examination Controversy

The deplorable incidence has sparked nationwide debates on UN. While the problem is perceptibly centred upon the logistics of UN, the

debates have expanded into questioning the usefulness of UN itself. The strong advocacy arguing against UN claims that UN is ineffectual in

measuring and improving the quality of Indonesian education system. Senior high school-level UN only assesses six out of the many subjects

that students need to read during their three years of studies, and the fate of their passing or failing the senior high school level is determined

by the results of these six subjects. Additionally, the UN provides no measurement to morals and character development aspect of education.

The UN, therefore, does not possess adequate capacity to measure students’ competence and the quality of Indonesian education system.

Another element that is equally disputed is the administering of UN. In the case of 2013 senior high school-level UN, the dishevelled

production and distribution of examination scripts had invited investigations from the National Police, the Corruption Eradication Commission

(Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi or KPK) and the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan RI or BPK) for any

possible indications of corruptions and grafts. More generally, there have always been serious concerns over the rampant practice of

cheating among students that, at times, are aided by invigilating teachers. The absence of integrity in the examination rooms is spurred by

the fear of failing the tests and its subsequent impacts to teachers’ and schools’ reputation.

Furthermore, there is concern over the apparent disparity of education quality across different parts of Indonesia. Having the central

government in charge of the planning and management of UN therefore potentially puts provincial schools, particularly those situated outside

Java Island, at a disadvantageous position. Moreover, it has been widely pointed out that the UN causes too much of psychological burdens

on students. The criticality of UN results in determining students’ graduation status has been deemed as the cause of a shift of approach and

attitude towards UN. Instead of being seen as a measurement tool to their own capability and knowledge, some students regard the UN as a

stumbling block that needs to be overcome. As a consequence, it is unsurprising that fraudulent practices proliferate in many examination

rooms.

Is Abolishing National Examination Justified?

63


Having observed these deficiencies, the most pertinent question to ask is whether discarding the UN would indeed prove to be the best

solution. Evaluations are undoubtedly an integral part of learning. Not only would assessments provide feedback on the level of mastery of

acquired knowledge, they would also be needed for future competitions. The results of national-level final examination results are one of the

most important determinants to student admission in many tertiary education institutions outside Indonesia. When applying for reputable

world-class universities abroad, Indonesian students with UN results would stand in fierce competition with students holding other types of

qualifications such as GCE ‘A’ Level Certificate, International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma, Advanced International Certificate of Education

(AICE) Diploma, etc. If the UN were to be eliminated, or if it were to be given to individual schools to manage, how would Indonesian students

stand a chance to win a place in such universities? Imperfect as they may be, examinations and their results remain the most acceptable

form of measurements to students’ capability, and they serve as one of the most important assets in competitions at global level.

Instead of dismissing it completely, therefore, it is imperative for policymakers to make sound analysis of the basic concepts of UN and the

ultimate aims of Indonesian education system. Critics often lament the use of multiple-choice questions in the UN, citing that they do nothing

good for the development of logic, reason, and innovation. This type of questions curtails innovative thinking as they would only encourage

students to do rote learning for the sake of passing the tests. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the UN does not seem to provide

measurements to the development of students’ morals and character.

Education in Indonesia: Bright Future with Many Questions

The points raised on the format of UN and the purposes it serves, or does not serve, strongly suggest that there is a great deal of uncertainty

surrounding the direction where Indonesian education system is heading. What are the definition and the goals of Indonesian education

system? What kind of individuals is our education system aimed at forming? What capabilities are we measuring? In light of the

developments of intelligence and characters, where does the emphasis lie and how is the balancing act being made? In an answer to

globalisation, how does our education system equip Indonesian young generations with sufficient assets for competitions? What are the ways

to achieve such purposes, and is the strategy made within the framework of full awareness of future challenges those students will be facing

by the time they complete their studies?

At present, the answers to these questions seem less than clear. The recent commotion over UN indicates that Indonesian education system

has a lot of room for improvements. Indeed, education is the backbone of our nation’s future, and it is in our collective interest to ensure it

does what it is meant to do.

2. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/05/03/on-education-day-minister-apologizes-exam-mess.html.

On Education Day, minister apologizes for exam mess

Nadya Natahadibrata and Margareth S. Aritonang, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | National | Fri, May 03 2013, 8:22 AM

National News

As the nation commemorated National Education Day, which falls every May 2, Education and Culture Minister Mohammad Nuh apologized

for the national exam fiasco, saying the incident had taught the ministry a valuable lesson.

The minister, down played the mess, saying that the much-criticized national examination was only a minor part of the country’s education

system, and that the public should not exaggerate the exam delays in 5,109 senior high schools in 11 provinces.

“The national exam plays only a little part in the country’s education system. The most important thing is to ensure that all children receive

education services,” the minister told reporters in a press conference on Thursday.

Nuh said this year’s National Educatiob Day theme was “Improving quality and fair access [to education]”. The ministry allocated Rp 7.3

trillion (US$ 751.9 million) for unfortunate students to ensure they had equal access to education. “The ministry also provided Schools

64


Operational Assistance [BOS] for elementary and high schools, State University Operational Assistance [BOPTN], as well as scholarships,”

he said.

As the minister delivered his apology, teachers from the Indonesian teachers Union Federation (FSGI) staged a rally in front of his office,

urging the ministry to immediately scrap the national examination.

“The minister always said the national examination is important to map out the country’s education equality, but they never publish the report

publicly,” said Retno Listyarti, FSGI secretary general.

During the rally, FSGI also urged the president to sack Nuh, due to his incompetency in improving the country’s education quality.

“I wonder why the average score of the national examination is getting higher every year, but our country remains at the bottom in the global

education ranking,” she added.

Retno was referring to a report by Pearson Education that was released in 2012, which ranked Indonesia 40th place out of 40 countries in

terms of cognitive skills and educational attainment. According to Pearson, Indonesia had a lower education quality compared to Mexico and

Brazil, which were ranked the 38th and 39th, respectively.

Retno said the report by Pearson Education was proof that the national examination as a graduation requirement over the past ten years did

not play a significant role in improving education quality.

A member of the House of Representatives Commission X overseeing education, Surahman Hidayat, agreed, saying that the country’s

education was still below standard.

Surahman, who is also a Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) lawmaker, said that in order to improve the country’s education quality, the ministry

should have improved the quality of teachers. “I encourage [the ministry] to add more training for teachers to improve their quality,” Surahman

said in a written statement.

Previously, lawmakers asked Nuh to annul the exams and declare all students to have passed because the ministry had failed to hold the

exams simultaneously, which put the legitimacy of the exam results into question. The ministry refused to grant the request, saying that the

exam had been conducted based on the ministry’s standard operating procedures.

An online petition against the national exam was also launched on National Education Day. As of Thursday evening, the petition on

change.org had drawn more than 3,700 signatories.

The website also hosted a petition calling on the ministry to return the authority to determine student graduation to teachers and schools.

3. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/12/12/stop-corruption-abolish-national-exam.html.

Stop corruption: Abolish the national exam Gordon LaForge, Jakarta | Opinion | Thu, December 12 2013, 10:53 AMIn the Indonesian educational system, everybody cheats. Or at least that’s what I came to believe during nearly two years as a visiting English teacher in local high schools in Kalimantan and Sumatra.

During my first month in the classroom, I helped proctor an exam. As the co-teacher passed out the test, he read the rules: Do your own work, don’t cheat.

He then sat down, the exam began and the students promptly started cheating. They passed notes, talked across the aisle and even wrote on one another’s test papers.

Baffled, I looked to the teacher. He shrugged, as if to say, “It is what it is.”

65


It turned out that cheating in the school was common. Other teachers I knew placed in state, vocational and religious high schools from Aceh to Kupang, reported similar episodes at their sites. One teacher in Palembang recounted an instance in which he had caught students sharing answers during a test. When he threatened to punish them they just laughed in his face.

Granted, classroom norms vary from nation to nation and a foreigner could easily misconstrue cooperation for cheating. In Indonesia, education is more collaborative than it is in the United States, where learning is regarded as an individual pursuit. Nonetheless, by any definition, cheating in Indonesian schools is rampant.

As an outsider, my scope is limited. But during two years working with local students and educators, I saw that cheating wasn’t nourished by culture or character or anything inherent — but largely by a misguided policy: the high school national examination.

The Education and Culture Ministry recently won praise for canceling the exam in elementary schools, and it should ride that momentum to discard the high school one as well.

In a nation as diverse as Indonesia, it is brutally unfair to predicate graduation on a uniform, standardized test.

When it came time for my students to take the dreaded test, which every 12th grader in every province must pass to graduate high school, I snuck a peek at the English questions. They were advanced, at least relative to my students’ English abilities. If even half of them could pass the section, I would have been surprised.

Yet, somehow, they did pass; every one of them.

It turned out my school’s flawless performance was hardly abnormal. Last year, the education ministry reported that 99.48 percent of students nationwide passed the national exam. It brushed off allegations that cheating had occurred.

Corruption watchdogs have gathered non-circumstantial evidence of teachers and headmasters helping students cheat on the national exam. At one Jakarta high school, a teacher was caught selling the answer sheet to his students for Rp 35,000 (US$3) a pop.

Like the teacher in my high school classroom, few sharpen pitchforks over cheating — not as they do over state corruption, which, with a new suspect dragged into Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) headquarters each week, is apparently just as pervasive. With no massive losses to the state coffers, cheating seems a victimless crime.

But what most fail to realize is that one form of dishonesty begets the other, that the culture of corruption is learned in the high school classroom.

66


A recent article in The New Yorker by best-selling author and psychologist Maria Konnikova discussed the psychological causes and consequences of cheating in school.

She wrote: “When we cheat, we have a tendency to rationalize the behavior. We can’t change the past, so we change our attitude and justify our action.”

Cheating, researchers have found, is self-reinforcing. It gets easier each time you do it, and dishonest behavior is habit-forming.

It is paradoxical that dishonesty could flourish in Indonesia, where religion is pervasive, social rules governing manners and ethics are deeply ingrained and the education curriculum emphasizes behavior and morality as much as it does knowledge acquisition.

But research has shown the psychological effect of dishonest behavior may nullify moral conditioning. Citing a recent study from Harvard University, Konnikova wrote: “In both hypothetical scenarios and real-world tasks, people who behave dishonestly are more likely to become morally disengaged from their environment and to forget moral rules, such as honor codes”.

So schools can teach good ethical conduct every hour of every day, but when a student is copying an answer on a test — or when a government official is accepting a bribe — all of that learning is momentarily shut out by one’s engine of self-justification.

But for cheating, teachers and administrators don’t deserve the brunt of the blame. The pernicious national exam does. In a nation as diverse as Indonesia, it is brutally unfair to predicate graduation on a uniform, standardized test.

It expects students from high schools with collapsing roofs in Maluku or Kalimantan to be as competent as those from state-of-the-art private classrooms in Jakarta and Surabaya.

The pressure to pass the exam is immense — not just for the kids, but for teachers and principals who will lose face in the community and incite the ire of parents if they fail to pass their students. What choice is there but to cheat?

Providing education across the sprawling archipelago is not easy, and the education ministry deserves credit, especially for increasing access to schooling.

But the high school national exam is a failed policy that schools, and society, would be better off without.

The writer was a fellow in a bilateral educational exchange program. The views expressed are his own.

4. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/05/07/the-national-exam-a-violation-children-s-rights.html

67


The national exam is a violation of children’s rights Nadya Natahadibrata, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | National | Tue, May 07 2013, 9:30 AM

National News

The Indonesian Commission on Child Protection (KPAI) called on the Education and Culture Ministry to abolish the national exam.

The Commission also said that the national exam had failed to test the competence of students and instead infringed on the rights of children to develop themselves.

“The national exam, which serves as the only condition for graduation, is an attempt to judge students based on only one standard. By holding the national exam, the government is not giving students the chance to develop their potential,” KPAI chairperson Badriyah Fayumi said on Monday.

“The national examination is structural violence against children,” she said.

Badriyah said that every teacher and student had different skills and learning capacity.

“Many students could barely remember what the exam was about after it finished. That means the exam did not play any role in improving the knowledge or lives of students,” Badriyah said.

The KPAI recommended that the best solution would be for the Education and Culture Ministry to allow schools to independently organize final examinations. It said the national exam should only be held to map out the quality of education in the country.

The commission said its proposal, if accepted, could spare students and teachers from stress and anxiety.

“The ministry should stop treating students like objects. They should start to listen to them before implementing policies,” Badriyah said.

Rather than a final exam, students need a better quality of education.

“Basically, they do not need the national exams. What they need is an even distribution of good quality teachers. With the allocation of 20 percent of the state budget on education, the ministry should have easily achieved that,” Badriyah said.

On Monday, a group of students from public and private junior and high schools in Greater Jakarta signed a petition against the national examination at KPAI office.

68


They urged the government to provide them with good quality teachers rather than focusing on setting a standard for graduation.

“Teachers should have received better training before they were assigned to teach us. There are some teachers, who often just hand materials to us without any explanation, which leaves us confused,” said Oka, who withheld his real name, a student from public senior high school in Jakarta, during a discussion with the KPAI. He said that sometimes going to school felt like a waste of time.

“Prior to the national exam, we received no preparation. A lot of the time we came to school to prepare for the exam, but the teacher failed to show up. It is a waste of our time and energy. How are we expected achieve satisfying results? It is very frustrating,” he added.

Responding to the demands, Education and Culture Minister Muhammad Nuh said that he would not drop the national examinations.

Nuh said he could only agree to a proposal that merged the final exam for elementary school and junior high school students.

“There is one proposal saying that as we have a nine year basic education, why do we wait until the third grade of junior high to have the final exam? We are open to suggestions,” Nuh said.

Before the new policies are issued. 5. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/05/06/letters-the-national-examinations.html.

Letters: The National Examinations

| Opinion | Wed, May 06 2009, 9:36 AM

Opinion News

If not us, then who? Indonesia’s children will lead the way to a green economy. Policy undermining indigenous people

If there is one reason I will not vote for Jusuf Kalla, the presidential hopeful, it is because he is a staunch supporter of the National

Examinations (Ujian Nasional or UN) which stress students, teachers and school principals alike. They are so depressed that they want to

pass it by hook or by crook. The disreputable practices they commit to do so have in turn added to the list of existing corrupt practices

prevalent in all schools I know (and probably in schools all over Indonesia).

Students are immersed in the world of corruption from the time they are admitted to school until the time they graduate. They are

subconsciously taught that everything can be achieved without having to work hard as long as you have the money or power. For example,

you can get admitted to the most popular school in town if you pay or show the school a letter from your influential father. They will then leak

the entrance exam questions to you or even provide them with the answers. This is just one example.

I would like to propose two solutions to the UN predicament: First, for the time being, the UN should be replaced with the former NEM

method - Real Scores of the Final Evaluation Test (Nilai Ebtanas Murni or NEM) until schools are really ready for it. An individual school, not

69


exam papers, has the final say (or authority) to pass or to fail a student. Students come to school to acquire life skills or knowledge, not just to

pass exams. The school will decide on this based on his or her performance during the six years (for primary school) or three years (for

secondary) of his or her study.

Second, the UN can be held after students pass the final examination of their respective schools. They take it because universities or

companies require them to. Students register themselves for the UN at the local office of the Ministry of Education. Schools should not to be

involved. Students can take it again and again so that the UN should be held at least twice a year. It is up to the universities or companies

whether or not they want to assess one's academic performance based on the UN diploma. In this way, you will no longer see teachers going

to jail.

The present UN is far from perfect, which is why state universities still oblige high school graduates to sit their entrance tests. Kompas (May

3) listed eight kinds of intelligence, e.g. intelligence in Logics and Maths, Linguistics or Music. A person can have one or more type of

intelligence. The point is clear: you can still be a genius without having to pass the UN.

Selvanathan

Tebingtinggi, North Sumatra.

6. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/04/18/students-parents-go-all-way-final-exams.html.

Students, parents go all the way for final exams Andreas D. Arditya, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | City | Mon, April 18 2011, 8:00 AM

Only God knows: High school students from SMA 68 in Salemba, Central Jakarta, become emotional during a mass prayer held by their school in anticipation of the national exam scheduled for Monday. A total of 122,139 high school students in Jakarta are expected to take the test between April 18 and April 21. JP/Wendra Ajistyatama

Spending more time studying, waking up early, seeking additional tutorial sessions and consuming food supplements, students are prepared to do anything to pass the national examinations.

National exam week will begin Monday for high school students and on April 25 for junior high school students.

Ninth-grader Fatiha Royan has spent longer hours at school with her classmates over the past six months.

Fatiha’s school, SMPN 74 State Junior High School in East Jakarta, has been holding two-hour tutoring sessions three times a week for its ninth-grade students to prepare them for the upcoming national examinations. During the sessions teachers would drill students on subjects tested in the exam, namely mathematics, Indonesian language, English and Natural Science.

70


In addition to attending the extra sessions, Fatiha also enrolled in a private tutoring center.

“I am doing all I can to prepare myself for exams. I don’t want to just pass the exam, I want to excel,” she told The Jakarta Post over the weekend.

Fatiha said she had also been asking for prayers from her parents, friends and relatives. “I need all the help I can get,” she said.

Students, however, are not the only ones working hard for the best results. Teachers and parents are also putting in enormous efforts.

Winarti Ningsih, a teacher at SMKN 26 vocational high school in East Jakarta, said teachers have also been absorbed in preparations for their senior students.

The vocational school held six test simulations over the past few months. “We design the simulations to allow students to adapt to the final exam difficulty. The problems in the simulations are easy at first, but become more and more difficult later on,” said Winarti.

Similar to other schools across the city, vocational schools also added additional hours to tutor students on subjects tested.

“During the after-school sessions, teachers not only provide academic mentoring, but we also offer activities to boost student spirit for the test — some sort of motivational session, if you will,” she told the Post Friday.

The English teacher said she had observed that students were also helping each other in preparing and motivating themselves. “As the exam date gets closer, you can see more and more senior students staying around the school compound. They talk in groups.”

On Friday, the last day of school before the exam for high school students, SMKN 26 held a mass prayer with their students at a mosque within the school compound.

Nurlia, 55, whose daughter, Ira Nurianti, will take the exam, said that parents also share the burden, “like our children, we are also preparing for the test.”

Nurlia said she bought multivitamins and food supplements for her daughter and paid closer attention to how her daughter spent her free time.

“My daughter likes to study in the early hours of the day, which means that I have to get up at 4 a.m to wake her up. That’s part of a parent’s responsibility,” the mother of two said.

Nurlia realized that her daughter was facing a different and probably more demanding exam than her older sibling.

The government has decided that this year’s final grades would be determined using both national exam results and schools’ final tests, the weighting of which would be 40 percent and 60 percent respectively.

With no remedial test allowed, students must pass the exam to graduate. Students must score

71


an average of 5.5, based on their national exam and final school test scores, with 4.0 being the lowest passing grade for each subject.

A total of 122,139 high school students will take the test in Jakarta.

7. http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/archive/99-pass-rate-for-national-exams/.

99% Pass Rate for National ExamsBy webadmin on 10:01 pm May 13, 2011

Category Archive

Nurfika Osman

The new grading system for the national exams has seen a staggering 99.22 percent of senior high school students pass the recently concluded tests.

Of the 1.46 million senior high school students who took the exams last month, 11,443 did not pass, National Education Minister Muhammad Nuh said in a statement on Friday. Only 5,117 registered students did not take the tests.

This year, 60 percent of each student’s final grade was based on the national exam and 40 percent on the weighted score from end-of-term tests and reports in the past two school years.

The new system was implemented to better take into consideration students’ actual academic performance following criticism it was unfair to determine graduation solely on one standardized exam when the quality of teaching varied from region to region.

By way of comparison, 89.6 percent of about 1.5 million senior high school students passed the national exams last year. After the remedial test, however, the total passing rate still ended up at 99.04 percent.

“If we compare this year’s passing rate with last year’s, there was still an increase in the number of students who passed the national exams,” Nuh said.

According to the new system, there will be no remedial exam offered this year.

East Nusa Tenggara had the highest percentage of students nationwide that failed with 5.57 percent.

“Bali province has the smallest percentage of students who failed with 0.04 percent and Jakarta is second-best with 0.08 percent,” the minister said.

That reflected a trend in which students from the two provinces had consistently scored better than the national average.

Nuh added that there were 14,131 schools that had a 100 percent passing rate, while there were five schools where all the students flunked.

72


“In Jakarta, there is one school with only one class and all seven of its students failed the test,” he said, declining to mention the name of the school.

In Simeulue, Aceh, a school with 26 senior high school students also had a 100 percent failure rate, as well as a school in Jambi with two senior high school students. Two other schools with 100 percent failure rates were in Kian Darat, Maluku, and Urei Fasei, Papua.

For vocational schools, an even higher 99.51 percent of students passed the national test, but that was only marginally higher than last year’s figure of 99.2 percent. Results for the junior high school exams are expected next week.

Arief Rachman, an education expert who chairs the National Commission for Unesco, said the results showed improvement in national education.

“This new system does not mean that it was easier to pass the exam, but it shows that the new system has helped the government evaluate education in a better way,” Arief said.

“The new system has evaluated the students’ performance objectively and comprehensively. That is what it shows from the result.”

However, Edy Halomoan Gurning, from the Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation (LBH), which has been at the forefront of campaigns to cancel the exams, disagreed.

“The government has used a different exam system almost every academic year. Different methods cannot be compared to one another, so this is not a better system,” Edy said.

“All this is only victimizing the students, which is very sad.”

Governor, ombudsman slam national exams

by Luh De Suriyani and Ni Komang Erviani on 2014-05-09 Retrieved from http://www.thebalidaily.com/2014-05-09/governor-ombudsman-slam-national-exams.html.

The Bali Ombudsman has called on education stakeholders in the province to jointly ban the national exams, which, it said, intimidated students due to the intense pressure, while Bali Governor Made Mangku Pastika said the system was like a “ghost”.

Bali Ombudsman head Umar Ibnu Alkhatab said Thursday he was regretful that a student in Tabanan had committed suicide on Tuesday after sitting the mathematics paper on the second day of the examination.

73


Umar said he had visited the family of 14-year-old Leony Alvionita, a student at state-run junior high school SMP 1 Tabanan.

“We suspect that she was depressed because of the exam,” Umar stated. “This is an important note from the exams in Bali and I call on stakeholders to ban this system.”

Police in Tabanan are currently investigating the case and studying possible motives behind her action. Tabanan precinct Police chief Comr. Kardika said that Leony’s body was first discovered by her mother, Oky, inside the student’s room at around 10 a.m. Tuesday. She had hanged herself with a necktie.

Tabanan Police chief Adj. Sr. Comr. Dekananto Eko Purwono said Oky had been angry at Leony after the latter said she got answers from her friend. Leony went immediately to her room and was found later hanged. Other reports said that the suicide took place after her father told her that she might fail the exam as she had been unable to do the test well.

Leony was immediately rushed to Kasih Ibu Hospital, but her life could not be saved. Doctors pronounced her dead at 11:30 a.m.

Separately, Pastika blamed the poor education system as a factor that caused depression in students, saying it was like a ghost that scared students across the country.

“This [suicide] should not have happened. Passing the exams or not is a normal thing,” he said Thursday. “Moreover, the results aren’t out yet.”

Pastika said the government should evaluate the current education system and change it to be more educative. “I do agree that the national examination must be done. But don’t let it scare students.”

“We must formulate the best way to implement the exam,” Pastika added. He said the fear had caused students to carry out various rituals before taking exams.

74


“They hold istighosah [Islamic mass prayer], joint prayers, ask for blessings from their parents while crying, while many others wash their mother’s feet. This is too much. We never did this kind of thing before,” he said.

Other than Leony’s death, the Bali Ombudsman had also discovered leaked answers had been distributed, Umar said, emphasizing that there had been illicit practices surrounding the implementation of the national examination.

“[The cases of] the student death and leaked answers are just two among many cases that have happened. We must evaluate the system and deliver a statement to the center [Education and Culture Ministry],” he added.

Umar said his side wanted a more humane exam that appreciated students’ abilities were different from one another. The national examination contains several types of questions, but they are all similar for every school across the country.

In Bali, at least 60,175 junior high school students attempted the exams from Monday to Thursday in 452 schools on the island. The subjects tested were Indonesian language, English, mathematics and IPA (science).

The news of Leony’s shocking death went viral on social media, triggering the public to push the government harder to stop the exams.

“Enough, stop the exams! Education is not to kill [students],” women’s activist Gadis Arivia said through her Twitter account @GadisArivia1.

Parents have also reiterated their objection to the national examination. “Students have to take extra classes. They fear they won’t pass the tests,” said Kadek Riski, a parent in Denpasar, who said she had to pay around Rp 3 million to Rp 5 million (US$260-$432) to send her child to extra classes.

“It’s scary for students, but there’s nothing they can do except try their best,” she said.

75


1. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/03/27/national-exam-and-educational-development.html.

National exam and educational development Nurrohman and Dindin Jamaluddin, Bandung | Opinion | Sat, March 27 2010, 12:40 PM

National exam issue is currently igniting a hot debate. While many people including education observers, educators, students as well as lawmakers, stick to the opinion that the national exam should be abolished, National Education Minister Muhammad Nuh, on behalf of the government, asks people to stop making the issue controversial. This means that the government will not amend the ministry regulation on national exam.

Opponents of the national exam argue there are many frauds in its application; leaking documents, answer and question sheets as well as shamanism. Students' intelligence is measured by grades, which partially touch the key purpose of the teaching-learning process. Grades play a significant role in our education and it leads students to become certificate oriented.

The national exam is a formalization process, a setback and degrades the spirit of education. It is nothing more than a theater by the government in the name of state building and is extremely formalistic. But rejecting national exam merely based on the "government's failure" was not enough and not the appropriate way to solve problems related to education.

We should not be ashamed to admit that national exam is weak in depicting our education sector today. This situation can be improved if we realize and return to the basis of the learning process that applies to Indonesia so far: Cognitive, affective and psychometric domains. While concern about the cognitive domain through many kinds of evaluation such as the mid test, final test and weekly test, remain relatively high, stressing the two points later is low and appears to be ignored.

Concerning the learning evaluation applied in our education in 1971 up until 2002, the methods of exam varied and changed from time to time depending on circumstance, needs and culture-social of Indonesian people. We even recognize the "state test" between 1971 and 1972 and "School test" between 1972 and 1992.

In both methods, students absolutely passed the test because there was still no passing standardization. Later, it was converted into the national and final exam of learning evaluation (EBTANAS) that combined state and school tests and worked between 1992 and 2002.

This last one, however, is prone to attract attention of critics for it did not determine the minimum grade and standard students must reach.

If compared to the previous test, we still believe the national exam currently performed by the government is more effective to develop Indonesia's human development index, especially in

76


the education sector. Without highlighting and stressing the standardization of marks, the students' learning process remains covert and is hard to measure their progress during class activities.

Throughout the national exam process, teachers can improve their professionalism by creating teaching innovation that upholds intellectual basis leading to student independence and responsibility about themselves. Also, they are demanded to set strategies that take students to the visible purpose of learning (cognitive domain), or at least fulfill the minimum grade of national exam.

Instilling a culture of motivation and independence among educators and learners is imperative and should start immediately. Ethics, as a philosophy dealing with morality, should also be considered as the base of education. More attention should be paid to it.

Empirically, the national exam as a part of teaching-learning process evaluation plays a huge role in a country's education development. Only an education providing good evaluation, whatever it is named, for its learners can reach the heights of knowledge, societal acceptance. Conversely, ignoring evaluation means backwardness in education.

Besides those supporting aspects, there are also other reasons why national exam to be maintained. One of them is to nurture and balance out the diversity of Indonesia's human resources which are of course different from one region to another.

We are fully aware that the access to education is not distributed well; people living around capital cities possibly enjoy much better facilities than those who dwell in remote areas. "Papua is left behind 18 years in education" is a portrait of imbalance.

The next reason is because of misconduct and immoral acts. It comes as no surprise that a finding during the national exam 2007 so much dishonesty was committed by headmasters who collaborated with teachers on leaking the question-and-answer sheet of the test, whereas in fact the test was closed off, guarded, and monitored by an independent team. So, the regional school in which the national exam is held may ruin the image of our education, because at this time honesty and fairness is lacking.

To this end, the Indonesian people may have to support governmental policy concerning the national exam, where the country allocates 20 percent of its budget toward education.

Another thing, which is apparently a difficult but not impossible task, is generating national exam commitment that education is a priority on the national agenda and the clean national exam is a gateway.

Significant attention should also be paid to the change of the ongoing paradigm among Indonesia people that our education is merely directed to job no more no less, regardless of prominent values.

Ultimately, the national exam needs support and improvement.

The writers, Nurrohman and Dindin Jamaluddin, are both lecturers at State Islamic University (UIN) Sunan Gunung Djati, Bandung

77

Indonesian National Examination Policies: Critical Discourse Analysis 78