Yoyon Suryono as expert for the Government to give statement in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Tuesday (2/4) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court— It is not enough to view the differences between formal and non-formal education only from the definition without observing their concepts, contents, contexts, policies, even philosophy and paradigms. The concept of structure and tier in formal education refer to levels and types of education horizontally and vertically. Meanwhile, non-formal education has many forms, structures, and cannot be generalized, that non-formal ECE (early children education) is unstructured and not tiered. This was conveyed by Yoyon Suryono as expert for the Government in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System on Tuesday (2/4/2019).

"Therefore, there is a real difference between formal and non-formal education in terms of concept, content, context, and policy that have implications in differences in educators or teachers," Yoyon explained on the hearing of Case No. 2/PUU-XVII/2019 chaired by the Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the presence of the eight other constitutional justices.

Formal education is based on the philosophy of behaviorism and progressivism, while non-formal education is based on the philosophy of humanism and criticism. Formal education adheres to the academic paradigm and non-formal education adheres to the educational paradigm, namely life and placing people within the context of society and culture.

In addition, Yoyon also believes that factually formal ECE is different from non-formal ECE. Formal ECE has been professional in adhering to strict standardization and accreditation. Meanwhile, non-formal ECE is still within the social territory and does not need to be standardized and rigorously accredited. The same goes for the educators, so that formal ECE educators are different from non-formal ones.

Community-Organized

On the Petitioners\' argument that there was discriminatory treatment affecting access to welfare, justice, and legal certainty, Yoyon said that a limited number of ECE units are organized by the Government or regional government because most of them are organized and managed by the community. Non-formal ECE educators have a working relationship with the organizers and managers of the non-formal ECE units concerned. Therefore, the role of organizers and managers of ECE units established by the community needs to be supported by the Government and regional governments by not eliminating the obligations and responsibilities of ECE organizers and managers established by the community to advance ECEs organized by the management.

"So in this context, the central and local governments must continue to try to encourage and help improving education qualifications and competencies within certain limits, including increasing incentives," Yoyon suggested to the case requested by Anisa Rosadi, a non-formal ECE educator.

In the previous hearing, the Petitioner had argued that the articles impugned had violated her constitutional rights because they only recognize formal ECE teachers, while educators in non-formal ECE are not recognized legally as teachers. As a result, the Petitioner does not have a guarantee to develop competencies such as teacher certification and welfare benefits such as basic salary, functional allowances, and other special benefits. Therefore, through the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 1 number (1) and Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law Number 14 of 2015 on Teachers and Lecturers contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as “including Early Childhood Education in non-formal channels." (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)