Five-Day School Week Polemic
.
The polemic surrounding the new five-day school week policy was triggered by the issuance of Culture and Education Minister Regulation No. 23/2017 on School Days. Many misunderstood the policy. Its strengths and weaknesses must be analyzed objectively and rationally.
The five-day school week policy is one of the implementations of the Character-Building Education program (PPK) as mandated by Jokowi-Kalla’s Nawacita vision and the 2015-2019 Mid-Term National Development Plan (RPJMN). The PPK program serves as an instrument for the Culture and Education Ministry to realize a mental revolution within educational institutions in line with the National Mental Revolution Movement (GNRM).
Within the Character-Building Education Program’s Concept and Guidance document, the ministry defines PPK as “an education movement at schools to strengthen students’ character through the process of creating, transforming, transmitting and developing student potential by harmonizing efforts to exercise the heart (ethical and spiritual), the feelings (aesthetical), the mind (literacy and numeracy) and the body (kinesthetic) in line with the life philosophy of Pancasila”. As a movement, the PPK needs the involvement of the general public and cooperation between schools, families and communities.
On closer observation of the contents of the PPK Concept and Guidance, we will find that it seeks to refocus Indonesia’s educational praxis on Ki Hadjar Dewantara’s tri-center education of the school, the family and the community. As an implementation of PPK, the School Day policy must be seen within the framework of parental participation in educating their children.
Seen from this perspective, the Culture and Education Minister Regulation No. 23/2017 on School Days and its five-day school week policy has more benefits compared to the current policy of a six-day school week.
Five benefits
The first benefit is that a five-day school week will give parents more time to see and communicate with their children. In a six-day school week, parents have less time to spend with their children. This is contrary to parents’ needing the time to see their children.
Second, under a five-day school week policy, children will have more time to develop other interests that they do not in school. Spending six days at school may also be too tiring for students. In a five-day school week, they can have more time to do fun things with families, siblings or friends. If they were told to choose honestly, my intuition says that children would prefer having a five-day school week rather than a six-day one.
A five-day school week also gives teachers – who already find it difficult to fulfill the requirement of face-to-face student interactions for 24 hours in a week – more space to meet the student interaction requirement by using educational activities at school to fulfill the requirement. Thus far, teacher-student interaction in such activities is not counted toward the 24-hour weekly requirement for the teacher subsidy certification policy. Therefore, the five-day school week policy will improve teachers’ welfare.
Third, we also need to remember that teachers are also parents. It is humane to ask them to work with commitment and wholeheartedness for the education of others’ children for eight hours a day and five days a week. As parents, teachers also need to rest and see their families, especially their children. Families are responsible for the education of their children.
Fourth, a five-day school week will not burden students psychologically through school activities, as they will have spare time on Saturdays and Sundays to do the activities that they like, to develop their talents or to play to maintain their physical health.
Fifth, a five-day school week will drive the nation’s economy through study tours, culinary tours, museum visits and open-air recreation. In the time the children spend with their parents, the character-building education process will still be underway. If we do not train our nation’s youth to appreciate our museums, artistic endeavors and national culture, who will do that? Exercising the body, the feelings, the heart and the mind will be more effective through a five-day school week.
Polemic on learning hours
The public concern is not actually about the five-day school week policy, but the consequence of continuous study for eight hours at school. The public seemingly thinks that students will be in school for eight hours straight, learning in classrooms and extracurricular activities. Furthermore, there are concerns that students at all levels, from elementary to senior high, will be required to study at school for eight hours a day. This is the source of the public objection.
The understanding that students at all levels will study for eight hours straight should be clarified. It is impossible that the Culture and Education Ministry would issue a policy that, in my opinion, is inhumane, if it forces elementary school students, especially the youngest ones, to be in school until 3 p.m.
The Culture and Education Minister Regulation No. 23/2017 does not clearly regulate what the eight hours in school should comprise for students, teachers and school staff. It is important to clarify this, as the concepts of work hours and hours of study (learning hours) are separate from each other.
Work hours are the time allocated for calculating the duration of time a worker spends at work. In this case, one work hour is equivalent to 60 minutes. On the other hand, learning hours are the time allocated for students to complete the contents of an educational curriculum. In our nation’s curricular structure, one study hour consists of 35 minutes (for elementary school students), 40 minutes (junior high school students) and 45 minutes (senior high school students).
The polemic occurs because of three things. First is the mix-up between teachers’ work hours as part of a job requirement and students’ learning hours as part of the curricular requirement. Mixing up these two concepts can lead the public to believe that students and teachers both need to spend eight hours straight in school. As a result, the public rejects the policy, as they deem it inhumane and that it would instead hinder student development.
Second is the public’s misunderstanding of the PPK concept that seeks to return Ki Hadjar Dewantara’s tri-center dynamics that synergizes schools, families and communities. The core of the PPK’s strength is its expanded meaning of learning moral, spiritual and social values within the context of local and global communities.
Third are the contradictory articles within the Culture and Education Minister Regulation No. 23/2017, such as unclear definitions on teachers’ work hours, students’ learning hours and how to utilize a school day. Articles still generalize the definition of eight hours as teachers’ work hours.
Students looking through an envelope containing the result of the regional standardized school/madrasah examination (USMBD) at SD Negeri Bendungan Hilir 12 Pagi, Tanah Abang, Central Jakarta, Wednesday (14/6). All the students in the school have passed the examination and can go on to study at junior high school level.
Focusing on substance
The polemic of five eight-hour days at school is not exactly the main issue here. The lengths of school days and learning hours are up to each school. The main issue is how to strengthen character-building education in all of our educational activities by reviving Ki Hadjar Dewantara‘s core education teachings. The fact is, many schools have already implemented the five-day school week policy without any fuss.
Nahdlatul Ulama’s (NU) objection was raised due to a lack of understanding in the definition of eight hours studying at school. If all students started studying at 7 a.m. and they spent eight hours at school, they would go home at 3 p.m. This condition might tire students and, as a result, the existence of after-school Islamic classes (madrasah diniyah or madin) might be threatened. Such a debate need not occur if the NU understood that the learning hours for elementary school students in the five-day school week policy is in accordance with the demands of the 2013 national curriculum, namely that school will end at 1:30 p.m. at the latest, as the duration of one school hour for elementary schools is 35 minutes.
The PPK concept, in fact, enables a stronger bond between madin and formal schools, as madin is acknowledged as part of the expanded learning methods and can even be integrated with the student assessment system. Local wisdom and public participation is acknowledged in the context of character-building education.
Another objection is the lack of preparedness in terms of regional infrastructure. The Culture and Education Minister Regulation No. 23/2017 provides flexibility in Article 10 that enables schools to take different approaches to implementation. Various excuses on schools’ lack of preparedness are not relevant here. However, schools should be oriented to a five-day school week, as this will be more beneficial in the future. These benefits cannot be found in a six-day school week.
The focus of the polemic should not be superficial, in whether a school week comprises five or six days, but should focus on substance, as in whether a five/six-day school week would be managed properly in strengthening students’ character through the implementation of the Character-Building Education program.
Debate and polemic are common. However, polemics on matters of substance will always be more useful than dwelling on the number of school days per week and the total hours of study. Honest and open communication and dialog are needed to avoid unnecessary discord. The strengths and weaknesses of a five-day school week must be reviewed objectively and rationally to improve the quality of our national education system.
DONI KOESOEMA A
Education observer and lecturer at Nusantara Multimedia University, Serpong
