CURRICULUM KTSP ANALYSIS

CURRICULUM KTSP ANALYSIS

A.     Introduction

A curriculum analysis is an important thing that teachers have to do. As Posner (1992) stated that it is necessary to determine whether or not it is appropriate for the situation. By doing a curriculum analysis, teachers will know the strengths and the weaknesses and take the benefits from it. In applying a curriculum, teacher is a key factor in the successful implementation of it (Richard: 2001:99).

According to Richard (2001), the teacher should have some knowledge include practical knowledge, content knowledge, contextual knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, personal knowledge, and reflective knowledge. Thus, he/she will be able to analyze curriculum appropriately. Moreover, Peter in Suherdi (2006:97) said that teachers still remain paramount as far as education is concerned; it is because they have experience in the subjects in which they have specialized.

Lewis and Miel in Saylor et.al (1981) identified curriculum as course of study, intended learning outcomes, intended opportunities for engagement, learning opportunities provided, learner’s actual engagements, and learner’s actual experience. Meanwhile, Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan (BNSP) defined curriculum as a set of rule and plan concerning with goal, content, lesson material, and the employed way as the guide in performing learning activities to achieve certain goals. Thus, curriculum is a rule or direction which teachers must come with it to achieve the goals.

B.     Curriculum KTSP

Badan Nasional Standar Pendidikan (BNSP) (2006) defined KTSP as an operational curriculum which arranged and performed by every group or denomination of education. KTPS consists of the educational goal in every stage of group or denomination of education, structure and curriculum content, calender of education, and syllabus.      

   The curriculum KTSP is developed as its relevancy by every group or denomination of education under coordination and supervision of educational official and department of religious affair for the basic and intermediate education. The development of KTSP refers to core standard and graduate competency standard and based on the guidlines of curriculum development issued by BSNP and by considering school commmette policies. It must be developed on the basis of some principles as follows:

1. Focused on potency, development, needs and students’ interests and their environment.
2. Diversified and integrated
3. Responsive toward the development of science, technology, and arts.
4. Relevance with daily life need
5. Comprehensive and continuous 
6. Life long Education
7. Proportional between national and regional interests. 

In curriculum KTSP, there are four essential components of it, namely:

1. The goal of school,
2. Structure and content of curriculum,
3. Calendar of education
4. Syllabus and lesson plan.

In its implementation, curriculum KTSP consists of two documents; namely:

1.      Document I

It includes:

þ  Introduction

1.      the background of KTSP

2.      The goal of developing KTSP

3.      Principles of developing KTSP

þ  The goal of education

1.      The goal of education

2.      Vision of school

3.      Mission of school

4.      The goal of school

þ  Structure and curriculum content

1.      Subjects

2.      Local subject

3.      Personal development activity

4.      Subject allocation

5.      Completion of learning

6.      Upgrading

7.      Vocational

8.      Life skill education

9.      Based local and global excellence

þ  Calendar of education

2.      Document II

It includes:

þ  Syllabus from the competent standard or basic standard that the government developed.

þ  Syllabus from the competent standard or basic standard that the school developed.

In syllabus, it must include some points as follows:

e  Competent standard

e  Basic competence

e  Learning experience

e  Indicators

e  Evaluation

e  Time allocation

e  Resource

In Lesson Plan, it must include some points as follows:

e  Standar Kompetensi  

e  Kompetensi Dasar  

e  Indikator                     

e  Tema                          

e  Aspek/Skill                 

e  Alokasi Waktu            

1.      Tujuan pembelajaran

2.      Materi Pembelajaran 

3.      Metode/ teknik        

4.      Langkah-langkah Kegiatan

a.      Kegiatan Pendahuluan

b.      Kegiatan inti

c.       Kegiatan Penutup

5.      Sumber Belajar

6.      Penilaian

In line with the curriculum KTSP, principally it adopts the School Based Curriculum Development (SBCD), which has been developed and applied in Australia for some decades. It was established by the mid to late 1970s. (Brady: 1983). It has some characteristics as follows:

1.      It involves teacher participation in decision making relating to curriculum development and implementation.

2.      It may relate to only part of a school rather than involve the whole school.

3.      It may be “selective or adaptive rather than creative”. This indicates the range of expression of SBCD, implying that the staff of some schools may be involved in developing new curricula, whereas the staff of other schools may be content to adapt existing curricula or to concentrate on specific curriculum areas like provision of source.

4.      It involves a shift in the responsibility for curriculum decision making, rather than a severance of the school’s link with the centre.

5.      It is a continuing and dynamic process which ideally involves teachers, students and the community.

6.      It involves the need for various support structures.

7.      It involves a change in the traditional role of the teacher.

In this case, school and its teachers are given the authority and autonomy in making decision about curriculum.

C.     The Purpose of curriculum

Brady (1983) identifies some purposes including goal, aim and objective.

þ  Goal is a broad and general statement of society’s intention for the school as an institution. It is often an expression of national policy.

þ  Aim is a general statement of intent at the system, school, subject department or grade level, which is derived from interpretation of the goals

þ  Objective is more specific statement of planned learning outcomes, derived from the analysis of aims.

In Indonesia context, UU RI Nomor 20   Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional stated that the goal of Indonesia education is as follows:

“Pendidikan Nasional bertujuan untuk berkembangnya potensi peserta didik agar menjadi manusia yang beriman dan bertakwa kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Esa, berakhlak mulia, sehat, berilmu, cakap, kreatif, mandiri, dan menjadi warga negara yang demokratis serta bertanggung jawab”.

Concerning with this, BNSP stated that the aims of curriculum KTSP (for the basic and intermediate education) are as follows:

1.      The aim of basic education is laying the base of intelligence, knowledge, personality, noble character, and skill to be autonomous and pursue the next education.

2.      The aim of intermediat education is laying the base of intelligence, knowledge, personality, noble character, and skill to be autonomous and pursue the next education.

3.      The aim of vocational education is laying the base of intelligence, knowledge, personality, noble character, and skill to be autonomous and pursue the next education according to its vocation.

Thus in developing the curriculum KTSP, it must be based on the goals mentioned above.

D.    Curriculum analysis

In analyzing the curriculum, Posner (1992:31) states that the ideal curriculum documents should provide with the six kinds of information as follows:

1.      Some clues about the problem to which the curriculum was responding and the kinds of experts included in the development process.

2.      A clear idea of what students are supposed to learn, i.e. learning objective; what teachers are supposed to teach, i.e., content; and in what order it should taught and learned, i.e., sequence.

3.      A clear idea about why these learning objectives and content are important: I.e. rationale, some times called philosophy.

4.      Some guidance, whether in the form of suggestions or prescriptions, as to how to teach the objective and content, i.e., teaching strategies.

5.      An indication of how the curriculum and students should be or have been evaluated and what results were.

6.      An indication of whether the curriculum has been implemented; if not yet implemented, for what situations it would be appropriate; if already implemented, what happened when it was. 

This information must be provided by the ideal curriculum document. And again in helping teachers to decide whether there is enough documentation regarding a particular curriculum. Posner (1992:33) provides the following questions:

1.      Do the curriculum documents include learning objectives? Philosophy statement? Sample test items or evaluation strategies? Suggested teaching strategies? If the document is missing no more than one or two these items, it is usable.

2.      Can you find published articles or other materials that describe the curriculum’s story? The curriculum’s track record? Can you contact people involved in its genesis? Would it be possible to interview them about the planning process? If you can answer yes to one of these two questions, the curriculum is usable.

E.      Analyzing Curriculum KTSP developed by Umiyati M. Abdulmanan at MAN Model Kupang

In analyzing this document of curriculum, I would like to refer my analysis to some aforementioned theories. The first is from perspective of BNSP:

1.      Document I

þ  Introduction. consists of:

1.      the background of KTSP

She describes the background of document, and elaborates everything concerned with the curriculum KTSP.

2.      The goal of developing KTSP

In her document, it is not available. Actually it is important for the foundation in her efforts in developing curriculum.

3.      Principles of developing KTSP

She does not mention it. I believe it is essential to mention as it will be the basis for her in developing the curriculum. Without understanding it, teacher will not focus on developing it. 

þ  The goal of education

1.      The goal of education

She does not mention it. In fact, it must be included as the main goal of education in Indonesia. From it, teacher will carefully manage and develop the curriculum.

2.      Vision of school

The vision of school is available. It is “Unggul dalam ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi berlandaskan iman dan takwa.”  It is as the slogan of school and will be achieved by some strategies.

3.      Mission of school

The vision of school is available. There are seven missions as the strategy to achieve the vision. Namely:

1.      Organizing teaching learning process professionally.

2.      Applying a professional school management.

3.      Developing school management quality.

4.      Maintaining school facilities

5.      Establishing religious atmosphere and environment.

6.      Developing talent, interest, physical and psychology of students.

7.      Managing school administration.

4.      The goal of school

It is available in the document, saying that the goal of it is “providing human resource that is qualified, religious, autonomous and able to pursue to the further education.”

þ  Structure and curriculum content

1.      Subjects

2.      Local subject

3.      Personal development activity

4.      Subject allocation

5.      Completion of learning

6.      Upgrading

7.      Vocational

8.      Life skill education

9.      Based local and global excellence

The teacher in this case, does not mention Structure and curriculum content of her school. This is important to mention, to get teacher herself to know the content and the time available. Thus she can manage everything properly and effectively.

þ  Calendar of education

She also does not include the calendar of education in her document, but actually the case is that knowing the calendar of education is beneficial as the starting point for teacher to do her teaching. She will know and prepare her teaching based on it.

2.      Document II

þ  Syllabus from the competent standard or basic standard that the government developed. It is included.

þ  Syllabus from the competent standard or basic standard that the school developed.  

She writes the syllabus and lesson plan. In my point of view, the syllabus is appropriate, eligible and usable.

It includes: Competent standard, basic competence, Learning experience, Indicators, Evaluation, Time allocation, and Resource.

All the aforementioned points are well prepared and managed to be applied in teaching learning process.  But the lesson plan is not complete well. 

But in lesson plan, in my opinion, it is inappropriate since I find it in complete. There are some items that she does not mention, such as competent standard, basic competence, indicator, theme, aspect of skill, time allocation, method, evaluation and resource.

The second analysis is from Posner’s perspective; in this case, I would like to relate with what he has said.

1.      I believe that curriculum KTSP is developed and managed by many experts as the consideration of failure of Indonesia education.

2.      In KTSP, what student must learn what teachers are supposed to teach and what order it should be taught and learned are really clear and directed.

3.      There is not a clear idea about why these learning objectives and contents are important, which are tailor made with the regional potency and human resource as well as natural resources.

4.      The guidance, the form of suggestion and prescription are not clear to direct how to teach the objective and content (teaching strategies)

5.      It is not clear enough about an indication of how the curriculum and students should be or have been evaluated and what results were.

6.      In KTSP, there is no more explanation about an indication of whether the curriculum has been implemented; if not yet implemented, for what situations it would be appropriate; if already implemented, what happened when it was. It seems to me that the teachers must have thought more of it as their evaluation and correction.

The last I have to answer what Posner proposed in the previous two questions:

1.      The curriculum documents include learning objectives and also the Philosophy statement. But sample test items or evaluation strategies and Suggested teaching strategies are not stated and not available.

2.      I cannot find any published articles or other materials that describe the curriculum’s story and the curriculum’s track record. Again I cannot find contact people involved in its genesis.

BNSP ANALYSIS

DOCUMENT I

No	Documents	Available	Not available
1	þ  Introduction
	The background of KTSP	P
	The goal of developing KTSP		P
	Principles of developing KTSP		P
2	þ  The goal of education
	The goal of education	P
	Vision of school	P
	Mission of school	P
	The goal of school	P
3	þ  Structure and curriculum content
	Subjects		P
	Local subject		P
	Personal development activity		P
	Subject allocation		P
	Completion of learning		P
	Upgrading		P
	Vocational		P
	Life skill education		P
	Based local and global excellence		P
4	þ  Calendar of education		P

DOCUMENT II

No	Documents	Available	Not available
1	Syllabus from the competent standard or basic standard that the government developed.	P
2	Syllabus from the competent standard or basic standard that the school developed.
	Syllabus
	Competent standard,	P
	Basic competence,	P
	Learning experience,	P
	Indicators,	P
	Evaluation,	P
	Time allocation	P
	Resource.	P
	Lesson Plan
	Competence standard		P
	Basic competence		P
	Indicator		P
	Theme		P
	Aspect/Skill		P
	Time allocation		P
	Aim of learning	P
	Material	P
	Method		P
	Steps in teaching	P
	Resource of teaching		P
	Evaluation		P

POSNER’S ANALYSIS

No	Documents	Available	Not available
1	Some clues about the problem to which the curriculum was responding and the kinds of experts included in the development process.	P
2	A clear idea of what students are supposed to learn, i.e. learning objective; what teachers are supposed to teach, i.e., content; and in what order it should taught and learned, i.e., sequence.	P
3	A clear idea about why these learning objectives and content are important: I.e. rationale, some times called philosophy.		P
4	Some guidance, whether in the form of suggestions or prescriptions, as to how to teach the objective and content, i.e., teaching strategies.		P
5	An indication of how the curriculum and students should be or have been evaluated and what results were.		P
6	An indication of whether the curriculum has been implemented; if not yet implemented, for what situations it would be appropriate; if already implemented, what happened when it was.		P

POSNER’S QUESTIONS

No	Documents	YES	NO
1	Questions
	Do the curriculum documents include learning objectives?	P
	Philosophy statement?	P
	Sample test items or evaluation strategies?		P
	Suggested teaching strategies?		P
2	Questions
	Can you find published articles or other materials that describe the curriculum’s story?		P
	The curriculum’s track record?		P
	Can you contact people involved in its genesis?	P
	Would it be possible to interview them about the planning process?	P

F.      Conclusion.

Based on the findings and investigation, then I can draw some conclusions as follows:

1. This document is inappropriate and incomplete, since there are some points to be completed. But however in general it is still usable. The content, Competence standard and basic competence are still relevant with the vision, mission and the goal of school as well as graduate competence standard.
2. In Posner’s point of view, it is still usable, since I can answer “yes” to some clues which Posner has given although in some extent, there are many things to be completed and managed to make it more credible and accountable.

References:

Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan (BNSP). 2006. Panduan Penyusunan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta

Brady, Laurie.1983. Curriculum development in Australia. Australia. Prentice-Hall.

Posner, J Posner.1992. Analyzing the curriculum. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Richard, Jack C. 2001: Curriculum Development in Language Teaching, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Saylor, J Galen. Alexander, M William and Lewis, Arthur J. 1981. Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning.  Japan: Holt-Sanders Japan.

Suherdi, Didi. 2006. Classroom Discourse Analysis, a systemiotic approach. Bandung: UPI Press.