The Anxiety of Educational Reform and Innovation: Bridging of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies within Practice Educational Reform of Curriculum in Indonesia
Abstract
Reform and innovation are important issues in the educational field. Education is dynamic and changing depends on globalization demands. To counterbalance for these changes, there are two strategies to make education change. Top down and bottom up strategies. Top down and bottom up have advantages and disadvantages to the reform and innovation of educational. For instance, the advantage of top-down is the government have the power to make policy, do research about national curriculum and implement that policy in the education area, especially at school but for making policy, regulation, research and implement government have spent more money without significant result. In another hand, the benefit of bottom-up is the innovation of education easily to find and grow up because they have involved directly in the change in school, also understand what they need in education because the teachers and the principle have strong connection with the students and indirectly evaluate the national curriculum which is appropriate or not. Nevertheless, school community as the representative of bottom-up did not have the power to bring that innovation in the top level because there is no connecting purpose between government and school. In addition, the big effect is the top-down, bottom-up has the different points of view to look into education. Furthermore, to solve that problem, there are some approaches could be bond to both strategies such as the collaborative, negotiate, conceptual, and strategic clarification, school-based management and strong site councils. Based on several previous researchers that approach is the best option for bridging the educational purpose between top down and bottom up.
Downloads
References
Anderson T R & Rogan J M. (2010). Bridging the Gap. Bridging the Educational Research-Teaching Practice Gap. Curriculum Development, Part 1: Components Of The Curriculum And Influences On The Process Of Curriculum Design. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Cohen David K. Cohen, Spillane James P. & Peurach Donald J. (2017). Educational Researcher, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 204–212 DOI: 10.3102/0013189X17743488 © 2017 AERA. http://edr.aera.net.
Cummings R, Phillips R, Tilbrook R & Lowe K. (2005). Middle-Out Approaches to Reform of University Teaching and Learning: Champions striding between the "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Volume 6, Number 1. ISSN: 1492-3831
Dufour R. (2007). In Praise of top-down leadership. https://www.schoology.com/blog/top-down-vs-bottom-up-2-ways-to-approach-edtech-implementations
Engel A. (2013). The Missing Narrative; Understanding the difference between Education "Reform" and "Innovation".
Fullan M G. (1994). Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education. Coordinating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies for Educational Reform.
Honic. M I. (2004). Where’s the “Up” in Bottom-Up Reform?. Versions of this research were presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, in April 2003 and the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, in November 2003. EDUCATIONAL POLICY, Vol. 18 No. 4, September 2004 527-561. Corwin Press.
King, N. and Anderson, N. (2002), Managing Innovation and Change: A Critical Guide for Organisations. London: Thompson.
Kostoff, R. N. (2003), “Stimulating innovation”, in L. V. Shavinina (eds), The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, pp. 388-400.
Melchor, H.O. (2008), “Managing Change in OECD Governments: An Introductory Framework”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 12.
OECD. (2014). Innovation, governance and reform in education. Ceri conference background paper. Directorate for education and skills centre for educational research and innovation (ceri) governing board.
Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 49 of 2014 on National Standards of Higher Education-Indonesia
Saari, E., Lehtonen, M.H., Toivonen, M., (2015), Making bottom-up and top-down processes meet in public innovation, The Service Industries Journal, DOI:10.1080/02642069.2015.1003369 .
Santoso M. (2013). Indonesian Qualifications Framework. Directorate of Learning and students affair. Directorate general of hinger education. Ministry of Education.
Sarason S B. (1990). The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course Before It’s Too Late?. NASSP Bulletin. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Temes P S. (2003). Against School Reform (And in Praise of Great Teaching): Getting Beyond Endless Testing, Regimentation, and Reform in Our Schools.
Thomas P A et al. (2016). Curriculum Development. For medical education. Third edition. John Hopkins University Press.
Thiagarajan, S., Semmel, D.S., dan Semmel, M.I. (1974). Instructional Development for Training Teachers of Exeptional Children. A Source Book. Blomington: Central For Innovation on Teaching The Handicapped.
www.unicef.org/Indonesia/children.
Copyright (c) 2020 Studies in Philosophy of Science and Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
The copyright of the received article once accepted for publication shall be assigned to the journal as the publisher of the journal. The intended copyright includes the right to publish the article in various forms (including reprints). The journal maintains the publishing rights to the published articles.
