Workshop Komunikasi Guru SMK/SMU di Depok

MOTIVASI PESANTREN AN-NUR CIBUBUR

 

Mari menjadi “Alat” bagi ALLAH SWT dalam mewujudkan semua Rencana-NYA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fenomena muncul semakin banyaknya kaum Miskin di Indonesia, semakin nyata dan jelas ketidak mampuan Pemimpin di Negeri ini yang tercatat sebagai bangsa dan negeri yang mengaku memiliki ALLAH SWT, TUHAN Sang Pencipta Hidup dan Pemilik segalanya.

Kegagalan Pemimpin sebuah negara akan semakin menjadi jadi ketika akhirnya kehidupan masyarakat yang seharusnya lebih baik dari segala sisi, seperti Ekonomi, Sosial dan Budaya yang dapat menjadi modal besar membikin Indonesia menjadi Negara yang Makmur, Aman, Damai Sentausa – Lahir Bathin.

Ternyata, aspek Ekonomi sangat erat kaitannya dengan kadar Pendidikan, atau mutu hasil didikan semua komponen masyarakat. Andai saja semua rakyat Indonesia mau dan semangat menyisihkan Hartanya, Kemampuan Didiknya, segala jenis miliknya yang bisa disumbangkan, di bagi/share kepada mereka kaum yang membutuhkan dukungan, ditambah dengan Kordinasi Yang Jujur, Terbuka dan Ikhlas, maka keyakinan kita untuk mewujudkan Indonesia menjadi Negara yang Besar, Adil dan Makmur, adalah KENISCAYAAN yang sangat tinggi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marilah menjadi bagian penting Hidup ini dengan berbagi ILMU, MATERI, PENGALAMAN dan juga mungkin CERITA yang bermakna dan berbobot dalam mengembangkan Masyarakat khususnya kaum marjinal, Yatim Piatu, dan mereka yang hidup di bawah ‘garis’ kemiskinan.

[Heru]

SEMINAR KESBANGPOL, MEI 2011

Menyambung isu-isu utama Indonesia terkait dengan rendahnya Tingkat Kesadaran masyarakat akan Kehidupan Berbangsa, hilangnya Nasionalisme dan Patriotisme kalangan Pemuda, Pelajar dan Mahasiswa, Larasluhur Indonesia dengan didukung oleh Ditjen KESBANGPOL Departemen Dalam Negeri Republik Indonesia, segera akan mengadakan Seminar-seminar dan Pelatihan yang berkesinambungan.

Peserta Seminar dan Pelatihan tersebut nantinya akan melibatkan kalangan Pemuda, Pelajar dan Mahasiswa di Seluruh Indonesia pada umumnya dan di wilayah Depok pada khususnya, yang direncanakan mulai diselenggarakan pada Sabtu, 07 Mei 2011.

Peserta seminar yang diundang dengan target 350 orang yang akan dibagi dalam beberapa kelompok angkatan, dimana masing-masing kelompok angkatan terdiri dari maksimal 50 orang dalam setiap seminar. Yang artinya akan terdapat 7 kelompok atau Angkatan Seminar.

Larasluhur Indonesia Foundation [LIEF] akan mengundang narasumber yang berasal dari beberapa kalangan, diantaranya kalangan Militer, Praktisi Politik, Akademis dan juga Agamawan, untuk mengisi Seminar sebagai Narasumber Aktif yang mumpuni di bidangnya masing-masing yang akan dituangkan dalam materi seminar nantinya, dan juga akan melibatkan Pengamat dan Praktisi  Wawasan Kebangsaan Indonesia.

Harapan dilaksanakannya seminar ini adalah, agar masyarakat khususnya pemuda, pelajar dan mahasiswa sebagai kader bangsa yang memiliki hak memelihara Negeri ini, memiliki Bekal yang cukup memadai membesarkan Indonesia menjadi negara dan bangsa yang berwibawa, adil, makmur, diperhtiungkan dunia internasional.

[DR. Sahewa Prawirodihardjo]

 

Seminar Komunikasi – Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (BPK) – Hotel Santika Jakarta

MOTIVATING AND FACILITATING

Last Moment at Nias - Training of Trainer

Speaks..

– Lampung Tengah”]

With Master of Marketing Trainer [FX Hadi

BAKAT GENETIK VS SIDIK JARI

Bakat Genetik/Menurun secara Gen, adalah suatu kemampuan dasar manusia yang sudah tercipta sejak mansuia dilahirkan, yang dapat dimanfaatkan guna Kesuksesan Hidup seseorang.

Bakat Genetik sudah dilakukan dan direkam secara teknologi yang kemudian dapat di manfaatkan oleh  siapapun terkait Penentuan Profesi & Skill Selanjutnya sehingga seseorang dapat melakukan profesinya secara Tepat Waktu dan Tepat Guna, dan dapat diapstikan seseorang mencapai TEPAT PROFESI dan TEPAT TUJUAN.

Seorang anak yang terbukti/terdeteksi Bakat Genetiknya, misalnya, dari sisi Aspek Kemampuan Otak Kanan/Kirinya, bertipe:

1. Auditory

2. Visual

3. Kinesthetic

———

Berlanjut…minggu depan.

CO and CBO’S Leader Training in NIAS

Holi'ana'as People in Acts..

The Banner of CO & CBO'S Leader Training

Participants on Learning Session

Women's Leader is Questioning..

Larasluhur Indonesia Foundation's Director is speaking to training participants

Survey and Analysis of Alternative Education Programs [Propoor Family]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alternative education (AE) programs are experiencing tremendous growth in Indonesia and nationwide. Research regarding the practices in AE settings remains limited, and no research on Indonesia programs is readily available. In the research presented here, two surveys (one of teachers and one of administrators) and the resulting analysis provide some baseline data and opinions regarding Indonesia programs.

The research was conducted to investigate the current status of AE in Indonesia. The focus of the administrative survey was to collect demographic data and the perceptions of administrators on issues such as the mission, focus, and strengths of current alternative education programs. The focus of the teacher survey was to collect information about program and curriculum issues, information regarding teacher preparation and professional development, and perceptions of teachers on the mission, focus, and strengths of programs.

The purpose of collecting this data was to:

1) establish a baseline of information for Indonesia alternative education programs;

2) assess differences between rural and urban programs;

3) assess differences between teachers and administrators; and

4) determine the common elements across alternative programs.

 

 

 

 

There are many variations of alternative education programming across the nation, and most models  are represented in Indonesia. Charter schools, special vocational schools, magnet schools, gifted alternatives, boot camps, and alternative schools for disruptive youth are some of those variations. Clearly, legislation and budgetary allocations dictate how AE is defined and much of what will happen in any state.

For example, in 2001–2002 Indonesia allocated $13 million for alternative programs serving disruptive youth. This represents a dramatic jump from $5 million in 2000–2001.

The state Department of Education states the purpose of this funding as follows:

“. . . removes disruptive students from regular school programs in order to provide those students with a sound educational course of study and counseling designed to modify disruptive behavior and return the students to a regular school curriculum…alternative programs may operate outside the normal school day of the applicant district, including Saturdays. . . (schools) shall adopt a policy for periodic review of students placed in the alternative education program . . . and, programs may include services for students returning from placements or who are on probation resulting from being adjudicated delinquent…or who have been judged to have committed a crime under an adult criminal proceeding . .”

 

 

 

 

The type of programs, staffing, and other considerations are shaped to a significant extent by the purposes outlined in this funding. Nonetheless, a baseline of data is not currently available, and there is merit to establishing a knowledge base related to AE activities in the East Asia.

Questions for consideration in this analysis included:

• How are alternative education programs organized and structured?
• Who are the students?
• What are the educational, pre-service training, professional development, and preparedness characteristics of teachers? What needs might be related to these issues?
• What is the focus of curriculum and what differences are there in alternative education curriculum from regular education?
• How do teachers and administrators evaluate the effectiveness of their alternative education programs?
• How do teachers and administrators evaluate the importance of the various processes and goals of alternative education programs?
• Are there differences in perceptions between rural and urban teachers and administrators?

Curriculum

” there were a number of positive indicators in AE including:

• Curriculum is adapted individually – age and grade differences make it necessary to implement varied curricula within the same classroom.
• There is more emphasis on social skills training and on personal issues.
• The teacher to student ratio is appropriately increased to facilitate programming.
• In general, students seem to maintain current academic levels or make gains after alternative education participation.

 

 

 

 

One concern, particularly given the placement nature of a large majority of Indonesia programs, was that more than one-third of AE teachers had fewer curriculum resources than did regular classroom teachers. Furthermore, nearly 55 percent indicated that students in AE are excluded from some parts of the curriculum that are available to regular education students. This fact brings into question “separate but equal” rights to education. While there may be administrative mechanisms to assist programs in avoiding the hammer of this law, it is the spirit of the law that is of concern here. AE students need the best curriculum and best teachers to become successful.

Of lesser yet important concern is the issue of family involvement. The most frequent response regarding family involvement was that it is involved on an as-needed basis. Family involvement in programming is critical to success for many students. Making family involvement an integral part of the system for delivering AE services is more likely to yield success than an “as-needed” approach.

Effectiveness

Administrators and teachers view alternative education programs as effective in reducing disruptive behavior, reducing suspension/expulsion, improving school attendance, reducing tardiness or truancy, and changing target behaviors. To a somewhat lesser extent they also indicate effectiveness in reducing academic failure, reducing dropout rates, and improving academic performance. Programs, in the opinion of respondents, are less effective in developing career interests and improving interest in school activities. These respondent perceptions are comparable to what others have stated in the literature. Interestingly, urban respondents viewed their programs as significantly more effective in improving academic performance and reducing academic failure than their rural counterparts. This difference may be related to the fact that urban teachers indicated that AE has the “same or more curriculum resources available as the regular classroom” at a higher rate than did rural teachers. Teachers in rural settings also indicated that “more emphasis is placed on discipline in the alternative education classroom” at much higher rates than urban teachers. Perhaps the answer lies in program emphasis. Resources and program emphasis are two areas for further exploration since it is not possible to be conclusive based upon results of the current study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continued funding for alternative education projects.
2. Further evaluation of the efficacy of a predominantly disciplinary approach.
3. A re-evaluation of the funding allocation formula to provide a higher per child funding in rural areas.
4. Development of pilot projects that focus exclusively on providing services designed to engage families of high-risk children in the educational process.
5. Adequate training and professional development support for teachers working with high risk children and youth in alternative education settings.

Organization Structure

DEWAN PEMBINA / BOARD OF FOUNDERS

Hj. Sri Helyati D.P.
Ir. Dharwi Prawirodihardjo

DEWAN PENGAWAS

Dorri Herlambang, ST.,  MT.
Tri Ayu Noverani, S.Sos.

DEWAN EKSEKUTIF / BOARD OF EXECUTIVES

Direktur Eksekutif, Ir. Safrin Heruwanto P., M.KOM.

Bendahara Eksekutif, Trisni Kencana Dewi

Sekretaris Umum, Rizky Qomaril. A.Md.Kom.

ADMINISTRASI & KEUANGAN / ADMINISTRATION & FINANCES

Koordinator Pengembangan, Ir. Safrin Heruwanto P., M.KOM.

Manajer Akunting, Dwi Ayu Herowati, SE.

Pengembangan SDM & Relawan, Heru.

Manajer Teknologi Informasi, Arifin Setiabudi, S.Kom, MM.

Koordinator Lapangan, Rio Sugiantoro

Penasehat Hukum, Siti Aliyah Ali & Kenny Dewi Kaniawati, SH.

DEPARTEMEN MEDIA & TEKNOLOGI INFORMASI

Koordinator Departemen (Relawan), Aris Subagio

Asisten Manajer Media, Ayi Noverani

Media / IT Asisten, Kiko

Fotografi & Video,

HUBUNGAN LUAR

Koordinator Humas (Relawan), Angga Mugiara Kencana Surya, A.Md.

Manajer Humas, Elly Yusnita Aminah Al-Qadri, SE.

Penulis/Editor (Volunteer), …

Staf Humas, …