Tampilkan postingan dengan label Serba-serbi. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Serba-serbi. Tampilkan semua postingan

1 September 2014

The Case for Authentic Assessment.

Posted by bindousd | 1 September 2014 | Category: , , | 0 komentar

WHAT IS AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT?
Assessment is authentic when we directly examine student performance on worthy intellectual tasks. Traditional assessment, by contract, relies on indirect or proxy 'items'--efficient, simplistic substitutes from which we think valid inferences can be made about the student's performance at those valued challenges.
Do we want to evaluate student problem-posing and problem-solving in mathematics? experimental research in science? speaking, listening, and facilitating a discussion? doing document-based historical inquiry? thoroughly revising a piece of imaginative writing until it "works" for the reader? Then let our assessment be built out of such exemplary intellectual challenges.
Further comparisons with traditional standardized tests will help to clarify what "authenticity" means when considering assessment design and use:
* Authentic assessments require students to be effective performers with acquired knowledge. Traditional tests tend to reveal only whether the student can recognize, recall or "plug in" what was learned out of context. This may be as problematic as inferring driving or teaching ability from written tests alone. (Note, therefore, that the debate is not "either-or": there may well be virtue in an array of local and state assessment instruments as befits the purpose of the measurement.)
* Authentic assessments present the student with the full array of tasks that mirror the priorities and challenges found in the best instructional activities: conducting research; writing, revising and discussing papers; providing an engaging oral analysis of a recent political event; collaborating with others on a debate, etc. Conventional tests are usually limited to paper-and-pencil, one- answer questions.
* Authentic assessments attend to whether the student can craft polished, thorough and justifiable answers, performances or products. Conventional tests typically only ask the student to select or write correct responses--irrespective of reasons. (There is rarely an adequate opportunity to plan, revise and substantiate responses on typical tests, even when there are open-ended questions). As a result,
* Authentic assessment achieves validity and reliability by emphasizing and standardizing the appropriate criteria for scoring such (varied) products; traditional testing standardizes objective "items" and, hence, the (one) right answer for each.
* "Test validity" should depend in part upon whether the test simulates real-world "tests" of ability. Validity on most multiple-choice tests is determined merely by matching items to the curriculum content (or through sophisticated correlations with other test results).
* Authentic tasks involve "ill-structured" challenges and roles that help students rehearse for the complex ambiguities of the "game" of adult and professional life. Traditional tests are more like drills, assessing static and too-often arbitrarily discrete or simplistic elements of those activities.
Beyond these technical considerations the move to reform assessment is based upon the premise that assessment should primarily support the needs of learners. Thus, secretive tests composed of proxy items and scores that have no obvious meaning or usefulness undermine teachers' ability to improve instruction and students' ability to improve their performance. We rehearse for and teach to authentic tests--think of music and military training--without compromising validity.
The best tests always teach students and teachers alike the kind of work that most matters; they are enabling and forward-looking, not just reflective of prior teaching. In many colleges and all professional settings the essential challenges are known in advance--the upcoming report, recital, Board presentation, legal case, book to write, etc. Traditional tests, by requiring complete secrecy for their validity, make it difficult for teachers and students to rehearse and gain the confidence that comes from knowing their performance obligations. (A known challenge also makes it possible to hold all students to higher standards).
WHY DO WE NEED TO INVEST IN THESE LABOR-INTENSIVE FORMS OF ASSESSMENT?
While multiple-choice tests can be valid indicators or predictors of academic performance, too often our tests mislead students and teachers about the kinds of work that should be mastered. Norms are not standards; items are not real problems; right answers are not rationales.
What most defenders of traditional tests fail to see is that it is the form, not the content of the test that is harmful to learning; demonstrations of the technical validity of standardized tests should not be the issue in the assessment reform debate. Students come to believe that learning is cramming; teachers come to believe that tests are after-the-fact, imposed nuisances composed of contrived questions--irrelevant to their intent and success. Both parties are led to believe that right answers matter more than habits of mind and the justification of one's approach and results.
A move toward more authentic tasks and outcomes thus improves teaching and learning: students have greater clarity about their obligations (and are asked to master more engaging tasks), and teachers can come to believe that assessment results are both meaningful and useful for improving instruction.
If our aim is merely to monitor performance then conventional testing is probably adequate. If our aim is to improve performance across the board then the tests must be composed of exemplary tasks, criteria and standards.
WON'T AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT BE TOO EXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING?
The costs are deceptive: while the scoring of judgment-based tasks seems expensive when compared to multiple-choice tests (about $2 per student vs. 1 cent) the gains to teacher professional development, local assessing, and student learning are many. As states like California and New York have found (with their writing and hands-on science tests) significant improvements occur locally in the teaching and assessing of writing and science when teachers become involved and invested in the scoring process.
If costs prove prohibitive, sampling may well be the appropriate response--the strategy employed in California, Vermont and Connecticut in their new performance and portfolio assessment projects. Whether through a sampling of many writing genres, where each student gets one prompt only; or through sampling a small number of all student papers and school-wide portfolios; or through assessing only a small sample of students, valuable information is gained at a minimum cost.
And what have we gained by failing to adequately assess all the capacities and outcomes we profess to value simply because it is time-consuming, expensive, or labor-intensive? Most other countries routinely ask students to respond orally and in writing on their major tests--the same countries that outperform us on international comparisons. Money, time and training are routinely set aside to insure that assessment is of high quality. They also correctly assume that high standards depend on the quality of day-to-day local assessment--further offsetting the apparent high cost of training teachers to score student work in regional or national assessments.
WILL THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY FAITH IN THE OBJECTIVITY AND RELIABILITY OF JUDGMENT-BASED SCORES?
We forget that numerous state and national testing programs with a high degree of credibility and integrity have for many years operated using human judges:
* the New York Regents exams, parts of which have included essay questions since their inception--and which are scored locally (while audited by the state);
* the Advanced Placement program which uses open-ended questions and tasks, including not only essays on most tests but the performance-based tests in the Art Portfolio and Foreign Language exams;
* state-wide writing assessments in two dozen states where model papers, training of readers, papers read "blind" and procedures to prevent bias and drift gain adequate reliability;
* the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the Congressionally-mandated assessment, uses numerous open-ended test questions and writing prompts (and successfully piloted a hands-on test of science performance);
* newly-mandated performance-based and portfolio-based state-wide testing in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, and New York.
Though the scoring of standardized tests is not subject to significant error, the procedure by which items are chosen, and the manner in which norms or cut-scores are established is often quite subjective--and typically immune from public scrutiny and oversight.
Genuine accountability does not avoid human judgment. We monitor and improve judgment through training sessions, model performances used as exemplars, audit and oversight policies as well as through such basic procedures as having disinterested judges review student work "blind" to the name or experience of the student--as occurs routinely throughout the professional, athletic and artistic worlds in the judging of performance.
Authentic assessment also has the advantage of providing parents and community members with directly observable products and understandable evidence concerning their students' performance; the quality of student work is more discernible to laypersons than when we must rely on translations of talk about stanines and renorming.
Ultimately, as the researcher Lauren Resnick has put it, What you assess is what you get; if you don't test it you won't get it. To improve student performance we must recognize that essential intellectual abilities are falling through the cracks of conventional testing.

ADDITIONAL READING
Archbald, D. & Newmann, F. (1989) "The Functions of Assessment and the Nature of Authentic Academic Achievement," in Berlak (ed.) Assessing Achievement: Toward the development of a New Science of Educational Testing. Buffalo, NY: SUNY Press.
Frederiksen, J. & Collins, A. (1989) "A Systems Approach to Educational Testing," Educational Researcher, 18, 9 (December).
National Commission on Testing and Public Policy (1990) From Gatekeeper to Gateway: Transforming Testing in America. Chestnut Hill, MA: NCTPP, Boston College.
Wiggins, G. (1989) "A True Test: Toward More Authentic and Equitable Assessment," Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 9 (May).
Wolf, D. (1989) "Portfolio Assessment: Sampling Student Work," Educational Leadership 46, 7, pp. 35-39 (April).
-----
Descriptors: Comparative Testing; Cost Effectiveness; *Educational Assessment; Elementary Secondary Education; Nontraditional Education; Public Opinion; Standardized Tests; *Test Use; Test Validity

Grant Wiggins
CLASS


What is Authentic Assessment?

Posted by bindousd | | Category: , , | 0 komentar

Definitions

A form of assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills -- Jon Mueller
"...Engaging and worthy problems or questions of importance, in which students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and creatively. The tasks are either replicas of or analogous to the kinds of problems faced by adult citizens and consumers or professionals in the field." -- Grant Wiggins -- (Wiggins, 1993, p. 229).
"Performance assessments call upon the examinee to demonstrate specific skills and competencies, that is, to apply the skills and knowledge they have mastered." -- Richard J. Stiggins -- (Stiggins, 1987, p. 34).

What does Authentic Assessment look like?
top
An authentic assessment usually includes a task for students to perform and a rubric by which their performance on the task will be evaluated. Click the following links to see many examples of authentic tasks and rubrics.
  • Examples from teachers in my Authentic Assessment course

How is Authentic Assessment similar to/different from Traditional Assessment?

The following comparison is somewhat simplistic, but I hope it illuminates the different assumptions of the two approaches to assessment.
Traditional Assessment
By "traditional assessment" (TA) I am referring to the forced-choice measures of multiple-choice tests, fill-in-the-blanks, true-false, matching and the like that have been and remain so common in education.  Students typically select an answer or recall information to complete the assessment. These tests may be standardized or teacher-created.  They may be administered locally or statewide, or internationally.
Behind traditional and authentic assessments is a belief that the primary mission of schools is to help develop productive citizens.  That is the essence of most mission statements I have read.  From this common beginning, the two perspectives on assessment diverge.  Essentially, TA is grounded in educational philosophy that adopts the following reasoning and practice:
top
1. A school's mission is to develop productive citizens.
2. To be a productive citizen an individual must possess a certain body of knowledge and skills.
3. Therefore, schools must teach this body of knowledge and skills.
4. To determine if it is successful, the school must then test students to see if they acquired the knowledge and skills.

In the TA model, the curriculum drives assessment.   "The" body of knowledge is determined first.  That knowledge becomes the curriculum that is delivered.  Subsequently, the assessments are developed and administered to determine if acquisition of the curriculum occurred.
Authentic Assessment
In contrast, authentic assessment (AA) springs from the following reasoning and practice:
1. A school's mission is to develop productive citizens.
2. To be a productive citizen, an individual must be capable of performing meaningful tasks in the real world.
3. Therefore, schools must help students become proficient at performing the tasks they will encounter when they graduate.
4. To determine if it is successful, the school must then ask students to perform meaningful tasks that replicate real world challenges to see if students are capable of doing so.

Thus, in AA, assessment drives the curriculum.  That is, teachers first determine the tasks that students will perform to demonstrate their mastery, and then a curriculum is developed that will enable students to perform those tasks well, which would include the acquisition of essential knowledge and skills.  This has been referred to as planning backwards (e.g., McDonald, 1992).
top
If I were a golf instructor and I taught the skills required to perform well, I would not assess my students' performance by giving them a multiple choice test.  I would put them out on the golf course and ask them to perform.  Although this is obvious with athletic skills, it is also true for academic subjects.  We can teach students how to do math, do history and do science, not just know them.  Then, to assess what our students had learned, we can ask students to perform tasks that "replicate the challenges" faced by those using mathematics, doing history or conducting scientific investigation.
Authentic Assessment Complements Traditional Assessment
But a teacher does not have to choose between AA and TA. It is likely that some mix of the two will best meet your needs. To use a silly example, if I had to choose a chauffeur from between someone who passed the driving portion of the driver's license test but failed the written portion or someone who failed the driving portion and passed the written portion, I would choose the driver who most directly demonstrated the ability to drive, that is, the one who passed the driving portion of the test. However, I would prefer a driver who passed both portions. I would feel more comfortable knowing that my chauffeur had a good knowledge base about driving (which might best be assessed in a traditional manner) and was able to apply that knowledge in a real context (which could be demonstrated through an authentic assessment).

Defining Attributes of Traditional and Authentic Assessment
top
Another way that AA is commonly distinguished from TA is in terms of its defining attributes. Of course, TA's as well as AA's vary considerably in the forms they take. But, typically, along the continuums of attributes listed below, TA's fall more towards the left end of each continuum and AA's fall more towards the right end.

Traditional --------------------------------------------- Authentic
Selecting a Response ------------------------------------ Performing a Task
Contrived --------------------------------------------------------------- Real-life
Recall/Recognition ------------------------------- Construction/Application
Teacher-structured ------------------------------------- Student-structured
Indirect Evidence -------------------------------------------- Direct Evidence

Let me clarify the attributes by elaborating on each in the context of traditional and authentic assessments:

Selecting a Response to Performing a Task: On traditional assessments, students are typically given several choices (e.g., a,b,c or d; true or false; which of these match with those) and asked to select the right answer. In contrast, authentic assessments ask students to demonstrate understanding by performing a more complex task usually representative of more meaningful application.

Contrived to Real-life: It is not very often in life outside of school that we are asked to select from four alternatives to indicate our proficiency at something. Tests offer these contrived means of assessment to increase the number of times you can be asked to demonstrate proficiency in a short period of time. More commonly in life, as in authentic assessments, we are asked to demonstrate proficiency by doing something.

top
Recall/Recognition of Knowledge to Construction/Application of Knowledge:Well-designed traditional assessments (i.e., tests and quizzes) can effectively determine whether or not students have acquired a body of knowledge. Thus, as mentioned above, tests can serve as a nice complement to authentic assessments in a teacher's assessment portfolio. Furthermore, we are often asked to recall or recognize facts and ideas and propositions in life, so tests are somewhat authentic in that sense. However, the demonstration of recall and recognition on tests is typically much less revealing about what we really know and can do than when we are asked to construct a product or performance out of facts, ideas and propositions. Authentic assessments often ask students to analyze, synthesize and apply what they have learned in a substantial manner, and students create new meaning in the process as well.

Teacher-structured to Student-structured: When completing a traditional assessment, what a student can and will demonstrate has been carefully structured by the person(s) who developed the test. A student's attention will understandably be focused on and limited to what is on the test. In contrast, authentic assessments allow more student choice and construction in determining what is presented as evidence of proficiency. Even when students cannot choose their own topics or formats, there are usually multiple acceptable routes towards constructing a product or performance. Obviously, assessments more carefully controlled by the teachers offer advantages and disadvantages. Similarly, more student-structured tasks have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered when choosing and designing an assessment.

Indirect Evidence to Direct Evidence: Even if a multiple-choice question asks a student to analyze or apply facts to a new situation rather than just recall the facts, and the student selects the correct answer, what do you now know about that student? Did that student get lucky and pick the right answer? What thinking led the student to pick that answer? We really do not know. At best, we can make some inferences about what that student might know and might be able to do with that knowledge. The evidence is very indirect, particularly for claims of meaningful application in complex, real-world situations. Authentic assessments, on the other hand, offer more direct evidence of application and construction of knowledge. As in the golf example above, putting a golf student on the golf course to play provides much more direct evidence of proficiency than giving the student a written test. Can a student effectively critique the arguments someone else has presented (an important skill often required in the real world)? Asking a student to write a critique should provide more direct evidence of that skill than asking the student a series of multiple-choice, analytical questions about a passage, although both assessments may be useful.

top
Teaching to the Test
These two different approaches to assessment also offer different advice about teaching to the test.  Under the TA model, teachers have been discouraged from teaching to the test.  That is because a test usually assesses a sample of students' knowledge and understanding and assumes that students' performance on the sample is representative of their knowledge of all the relevant material.  If teachers focus primarily on the sample to be tested during instruction, then good performance on that sample does not necessarily reflect knowledge of all the material.   So, teachers hide the test so that the sample is not known beforehand, and teachers are admonished not to teach to the test.
With AA, teachers are encouraged to teach to the test.  Students need to learn how to perform well on meaningful tasks.  To aid students in that process, it is helpful to show them models of good (and not so good) performance.  Furthermore, the student benefits from seeing the task rubric ahead of time as well.  Is this "cheating"?  Will students then just be able to mimic the work of others without truly understanding what they are doing?  Authentic assessments typically do not lend themselves to mimicry.  There is not one correct answer to copy.  So, by knowing what good performance looks like, and by knowing what specific characteristics make up good performance, students can better develop the skills and understanding necessary to perform well on these tasks. (For further discussion of teaching to the test, see Bushweller.)


Alternative Names for Authentic Assessment
top
You can also learn something about what AA is by looking at the other common names for this form of assessment. For example, AA is sometimes referred to as
  • Performance Assessment (or Performance-based) -- so-called because students are asked to perform meaningful tasks. This is the other most common term for this type of assessment. Some educators distinguish performance assessment from AA by defining performance assessment as performance-based as Stiggins has above but with no reference to the authentic nature of the task (e.g., Meyer, 1992). For these educators, authentic assessments are performance assessments using real-world or authentic tasks or contexts. Since we should not typically ask students to perform work that is not authentic in nature, I choose to treat these two terms synonymously.
  • Alternative Assessment -- so-called because AA is an alternative to traditional assessments.
  • Direct Assessment -- so-called because AA provides more direct evidence of meaningful application of knowledge and skills. If a student does well on a multiple-choice test we might infer indirectly that the student could apply that knowledge in real-world contexts, but we would be more comfortable making that inference from a direct demonstration of that application such as in the golfing example above.

2 November 2012

Kurikulum Diharapkan Merespons Krisis Sosial

Posted by bindousd | 2 November 2012 | Category: , , | 0 komentar


KOMPAS, SABTU, 15 SEPTEMBER 2012 | 02:32 WIB
Yogyakarta, Kompas - Perubahan kurikulum diperlukan dan salah satu hal penting adalah membawa sekolah merespons krisis sosial. Pada saat bersamaan, menyiapkan tenaga pendidik dan calon pendidik memasuki proses belajar terus-menerus.
Demikian muncul pada diskusi pendidikan ”Perubahan Kurikulum: Urgen dan Perlukah Saat Ini?” di Kantor Kompas Perwakilan Yogyakarta, Jumat (14/9). Diskusi ini hasil kerja sama Kompas dengan Dinamika Edukasi Dasar (DED).
Hadir berbicara pengamat pendidikan Paul Suparno dan Ki Supriyoko; Ferry T Indratno (Direktur DED); pengajar Universitas Sanata Dharma, Haryatmoko; pengajar UGM, Agus Suwignyo; Ag Prih Adiartanto (SMA Kolese De Britto), dan Sri Prihartini Yulia (Pengawas Dinas Pendidikan, Pemuda, dan Olahraga Sleman); dipandu pemerhati pendidikan St Kartono. Semua pembicara setuju ada perubahan kurikulum saat ini.
”Perubahan harus menempatkan bahwa sekolah itu transmisi pengetahuan dan keterampilan. Sekolah juga wahana sosialisasi nilai-nilai dan sikap dalam masyarakat serta integrasi sosial,” kata Haryatmoko.
Terkait itu, kurikulum harus membawa sekolah merespons krisis hubungan sosial, kemiskinan, kekerasan atas nama agama, dan kesenjangan sosial. Harapannya, sekolah juga bisa menyampaikan nilai bersama berdasarkan akal sehat dan membuka kesempatan setara sehingga bisa memahami dan menerima pluralitas, memelihara kekayaan budaya, peran media, dan ekologi.
Kurikulum sekarang, menurut Paul Suparno, justru membebani anak. Dengan 14-16 mata pelajaran, ditambah keterbatasan waktu, siswa tak mampu belajar kritis atau mengambil keputusan.

Peran guru
Pembaruan kurikulum, lanjut Haryatmoko, juga bergantung pada guru. Untuk itu, guru harus bisa mengatasi ketinggalan kompetensi disiplin ilmu.
Hal sama diungkapkan Paul. Penyiapan guru sebagai pelaku kurikulum amat penting, khususnya menyongsong wacana memberi kebebasan institusi membuat kurikulum sendiri.
Kurikulum yang katanya kontekstual kenyataannya tidak, bahkan cenderung seragam.
Menurut Ki Supriyoko, delapan kali perubahan kurikulum (1950-2007) tak didasarkan pada perkembangan iptek dan budaya lokal. Namun, disebabkan faktor politis, seperti penggantian kurikulum tahun 1964 sebagai produk Orde Lama menjadi kurikulum 1968 produk Orde Baru.
”Kalau mau jujur, meskipun 67 tahun merdeka, masalah pendidikan dan tenaga kependidikan belum pernah dapat solusi memadai,” katanya. (TOP/ABK)
Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2012/09/15/02325662/Kurikulum.Diharapkan.Merespons.Krisis.Sosial

Can You Make Yourself Smarter?

Posted by bindousd | | Category: | 0 komentar

Early on a drab afternoon in January, a dozen third graders from the working-class suburb of Chicago Heights, Ill., burst into the Mac Lab on the ground floor of Washington-McKinley School in a blur of blue pants, blue vests and white shirts. Minutes later, they were hunkered down in front of the Apple computers lining the room’s perimeter, hoping to do what was, until recently, considered impossible: increase their intelligence through training.

“Can somebody raise their hand,” asked Kate Wulfson, the instructor, “and explain to me how you get points?”
On each of the children’s monitors, there was a cartoon image of a haunted house, with bats and a crescent moon in a midnight blue sky. Every few seconds, a black cat appeared in one of the house’s five windows, then vanished. The exercise was divided into levels. On Level 1, the children earned a point by remembering which window the cat was just in. Easy. But the game is progressive: the cats keep coming, and the kids have to keep watching and remembering.
“And here’s where it gets confusing,” Wulfson continued. “If you get to Level 2, you have to remember where the cat was two windows ago. The time before last. For Level 3, you have to remember where it was three times ago. Level 4 is four times ago. That’s hard. You have to keep track. O.K., ready? Once we start, anyone who talks loses a star.”
So began 10 minutes of a remarkably demanding concentration game. At Level 2, even adults find the task somewhat taxing. Almost no one gets past Level 3 without training. But most people who stick with the game do get better with practice. This isn’t surprising: practice improves performance on almost every task humans engage in, whether it’s learning to read or playing horseshoes.
What is surprising is what else it improved. In a 2008 study, Susanne Jaeggi and Martin Buschkuehl, now of the University of Maryland, found that young adults who practiced a stripped-down, less cartoonish version of the game also showed improvement in a fundamental cognitive ability known as “fluid” intelligence: the capacity to solve novel problems, to learn, to reason, to see connections and to get to the bottom of things. The implication was that playing the game literally makes people smarter.
Psychologists have long regarded intelligence as coming in two flavors: crystallized intelligence, the treasure trove of stored-up information and how-to knowledge (the sort of thing tested on “Jeopardy!” or put to use when you ride a bicycle); and fluid intelligence. Crystallized intelligence grows as you age; fluid intelligence has long been known to peak in early adulthood, around college age, and then to decline gradually. And unlike physical conditioning, which can transform 98-pound weaklings into hunks, fluid intelligence has always been considered impervious to training.
That, after all, is the premise of I.Q. tests, or at least the portion that measures fluid intelligence: we can test you now and predict all sorts of things in the future, because fluid intelligence supposedly sets in early and is fairly immutable. While parents, teachers and others play an essential role in establishing an environment in which a child’s intellect can grow, even Tiger Mothers generally expect only higher grades will come from their children’s diligence — not better brains.
How, then, could watching black cats in a haunted house possibly increase something as profound as fluid intelligence? Because the deceptively simple game, it turns out, targets the most elemental of cognitive skills: “working” memory. What long-term memory is to crystallized intelligence, working memory is to fluid intelligence. Working memory is more than just the ability to remember a telephone number long enough to dial it; it’s the capacity to manipulate the information you’re holding in your head — to add or subtract those numbers, place them in reverse order or sort them from high to low. Understanding a metaphor or an analogy is equally dependent on working memory; you can’t follow even a simple statement like “See Jane run” if you can’t put together how “see” and “Jane” connect with “run.” Without it, you can’t make sense of anything.
cited from The New York Times
Dan Hurley is working on a book about intelligence. His last article for the magazine was about a drug being tested to raise intelligence in people with Down Syndrome 
Editor: Ilena Silverman

14 Mei 2012

Wonderful Story (Must read it)

Posted by bindousd | 14 Mei 2012 | Category: | 0 komentar

Cerita dari email sebelah: 

He met her at a party. She was so outstanding, many guys chasing after her, while he was so normal, nobody paid attention to him.
At the end of the party, he invited her to have coffee with him, she was surprised but due to being polite, she promised. They sat in a nice coffee shop, he was too nervous to say anything, she felt uncomfortable, and she thought to herself, "Please, let me go home..."
Suddenly he asked the waiter, "Would you please give me some salt? I'd like to put it in my coffee." Everybody stared at him, so strange! His face turned red but still, he put the salt in his coffee and drank it. She asked him curiously, "Why you have this hobby?" He replied, "When I was a little boy, I lived near the sea, I liked playing in the sea, I could feel the taste of the sea, just like the taste of the salty coffee. Now every time I have the salty coffee, I always think of my childhood, think of my hometown, I miss my hometown so much, I miss my parents who are still living there." While saying that tears filled his eyes. She was deeply touched. That's his true feeling, from the bottom of his heart. A man who can tell out his homesickness, he must be a man who loves home, cares about home, has responsibility of home... Then she also started to speak, spoke about her faraway hometown, her childhood, her family.
That was a really nice talk, also a beautiful beginning of their story. They continued to date. She found that actually he was a man who meets all her demands; he had tolerance, was kind hearted, warm, careful. He was such a good person but she almost missed him! Thanks to his salty coffee! Then the story was just like every beautiful love story, the princess married to the prince, and then they were living the happy life... And, every time she made coffee for him, she put some salt in the coffee, as she knew that's the way he liked it.
After 40 years, he passed away, left her a letter which said, "My dearest, please forgive me, forgive my whole life's lie. This was the only lie I said to you---the salty coffee. Remember the first time we dated? I was so nervous at that time, actually I wanted some sugar, but I said salt. It was hard for me to change so I just went ahead. I never thought that could be the start of our communication! I tried to tell you the truth many times in my life, but I was too afraid to do that, as I have promised not to lie to you for anything... Now I'm dying, I afraid of nothing so I tell you the truth, I don't like the salty coffee, what a strange bad taste... But I have had the salty coffee for my whole life! Since I knew you, I never feel sorry for anything I do for you. Having you with me is my biggest happiness for my whole life. If I can live for the second time, still want to know you and have you for my whole life, even though I have to drink the salty coffee again."
Her tears made the letter totally wet. Someday, someone asked her, "What's the taste of salty coffee?" She replied, "It's sweet."
Pass this to everyone because love is not to forget but to forgive, not to see but understand, not to hear but to listen, not to let go but HOLD ON!!!! 

Read more: http://nicefun.net/wonderful-story-must-read-it-vt5574.html#ixzz1uqfq5Ajc

3 Oktober 2011

Daftar SMA RSBI di Indonesia

Posted by bindousd | 3 Oktober 2011 | Category: | 0 komentar

SBI adalah sekolah nasional yang menyiapkan peserta didik berbasis Standar Nasional Pendidikan (SNP) Indonesia berkualitas Internasional dan lulusannya berdaya saing Internasional.
Berikut ini daftar sekolah RSBI berdasarkan urutan  Propinsi

No. No. Tahun Provinsi Kab/Kota Sekolah Ket
1 1 2006 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Pusat SMAN 68 Jakarta
2 2 2006 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Utara SMAN 13 Jakarta Utara
3 3 2006 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Barat SMAN 78 Jakarta
4 4 2006 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Selatan SMAN 8 Jakarta
5 5 2006 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Selatan SMAN 70 Jakarta
6 6 2006 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Selatan SMA Islam Al-Azhar 1
7 7 2006 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Timur SMA Lab School Jakarta
8 8 2006 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Timur SMAN 81 Jakarta
9 9 2007 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Selatan SMAN 28 Jakarta
10 10 2007 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Timur SMAN 61 Jakarta
11 11 2009 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Utara SMA Islam Al-Azhar Kelapa Gading
12 12 2009 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Selatan SMAN 3 Jakarta
13 13 2009 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Timur SMAN 21 Jakarta
14 14 2010 DKI Jakarta Kota Jakarta Utara SMA Jubilee Jakarta
15 1 2006 Jawa Barat Kab. Subang SMAN 1 Subang
16 2 2006 Jawa barat Kab. Bekasi SMAN 1 Tambun
17 3 2006 Jawa Barat Kota Bandung SMAN 3 Bandung
18 4 2006 Jawa Barat Kota Bogor SMAN 1 Bogor
19 5 2006 Jawa Barat Kota Cirebon SMAN 2 Cirebon
20 6 2006 Jawa Barat Kota Bekasi SMAN 5 Bekasi
21 7 2006 Jawa Barat Kota Depok SMA Cakra Buana Depok
22 8 2006 Jawa Barat Kota Depok SMA Lazuardi GIS
23 9 2006 Jawa Barat Kota Depok SMAN 2 Depok
24 10 2006 Jawa Barat Kota Tasikmalaya SMAN 2 Tasikmalaya
25 11 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Sukabumi SMAN 1 Cibadak
26 12 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Cianjur SMAN 1 Cianjur
27 13 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Bandung Barat SMAN 1 Cisarua
28 14 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Bandung SMAN 1 Baleendah
29 15 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Sumedang SMAN 1 Sumedang
30 16 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Garut SMAN 1 Garut
31 17 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Garut SMAN 11 Garut
32 18 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Ciamis SMAN 2 Ciamis
33 19 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Majalengka SMAN 1 Majalengka
34 20 2007 Jawa  Barat Kab. Cirebon SMAN 1 Palimanan
35 21 2007 Jawa Barat Kab. Indramayu SMAN 1 Sindang
36 22 2007 Jawa barat Kab. Karawang SMAN 1 Krawang
37 23 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Bandung SMA Krida Nusantara
38 24 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Bandung SMAN 5 Bandung
39 25 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Bogor SMAN 2 Bogor
40 26 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Bogor SMAN 3 Bogor
41 27 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Sukabumi SMA Pesantren Terpadu HT
42 28 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Sukabumi SMAN 3 Sukabumi
43 29 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Bekasi SMAN 1 Bekasi
44 30 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Depok SMAN 1 Depok
45 31 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Tasikimalaya SMAN 1 Tasikmalaya
46 32 2007 Jawa Barat Kota Banjar SMAN 1 Banjar
47 33 2009 Jawa Barat Kab. Bogor SMAN 2 Cibinong
48 34 2009 Jawa Barat Kab. Tasikmalaya SMAN 1 Manonjaya
49 35 2009 Jawa Barat Kab. Tasikmalaya SMAN 1 Singaparna
50 36 2009 Jawa Barat Kab. Ciamis SMAN 1 Ciamis
51 37 2009 Jawa Barat Kab. Kuningan SMAN 2 Kuningan
52 38 2009 Jawa Barat Kab. Cirebon SMAN 1 Sumber
53 39 2009 Jawa Barat Kab. Indramayu SMAN 1 Indramayu
54 40 2009 Jawa Barat Kab. Purwakarta SMAN 1 Purwakarta
55 41 2009 Jawa Barat Kota Cirebon SMAN 1 Cirebon
56 42 2009 Jawa Barat Kota Cimahi SMAN 2 Cimahi
57 43 2010 Jawa Barat Kab. Bogor SMA Madania
58 44 2010 Jawa Barat Kota Bekasi SMAI Al-Azhar Bekasi mand
59 1 2006 Jawa Tengah Kab. Banyumas SMAN 1 Purwokerto
60 2 2006 Jawa Tengah Kebumen SMAN 1 Kebumen
61 3 2006 Jawa Tengah Kab. Magelang SMA Taruna Busantara
62 4 2006 Jawa Tengah Kab. Klaten SMAN 1 Klaten
63 5 2006 Jawa Tengah Kab. Pati SMAN 1 Pati
64 6 2006 Jawa Tengah Kab. Temanggung SMAN 1 Temanggung
65 7 2006 Jawa Tengah Kab. Pemalang SMAN 1 Pemalang
66 8 2006 Jawa Tengah Kota Magelang SMAN 1 Magelang
67 9 2006 Jawa Tengah Kota Surakarta SMAN 1 Surakarta
68 10 2006 Jawa Tengah Salatiga SMAN 1 Salatiga
69 11 2006 Jawa Tengah Kota Semarang SMAN 3 Semarang
70 12 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Cilacap SMAN 1 Cilacap
71 13 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Banyumas SMAN 1 Ajibarang
72 14 2007 Jawa Tengah Banyumas SMA Negeri 2 Purwokerto
73 15 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Purbalingga SMAN 1 Purbalingga
74 16 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Banjarnegara SMAN 1 Banjarnegara
75 17 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Purworejo SMAN 1 Purworejo
76 18 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Purworejo SMAN 7 Purworejo
77 19 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Sukoharjo SMA Assalam Sukoharjo
78 20 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Wonogiri SMAN 1 Wonogiri
79 21 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Wonogiri SMAN 2 Wonogiri
80 22 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Rembang SMAN 1 Rembang
81 23 2007 Jawa Tengah Kudus SMAN 1 Kudus
82 24 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Semarang SMAN 1 Ungaran
83 25 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Semarang SMA Islam Sudirman Ambarawa
84 26 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Pekalongan SMAN 1 Kajen
85 27 2007 Jawa Tengah Kab. Tegal SMAN 1 Slawi
86 28 2007 Jawa Tengah Kota Surakarta SMAN 3 Surakarta
87 29 2007 Jawa Tengah Kota Surakarta SMA Regina Pacis
88 30 2007 Jawa Tengah Kota Surakarta SMA MTA Surakarta
89 31 2007 Jawa Tengah Kota Semarang SMA Karang Turi
90 32 2007 Jawa Tengah Semarang SMAN 1 Semarang
91 33 2007 Jawa Tengah Kota Tegal SMAN 1 Tegal
92 34 2008 Jawa Tengah Kab. Kendal SMAN 1 Kendal
93 35 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Cilacap SMAN 3 Cilacap
94 36 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Banyumas SMAN 1 Banyumas
95 37 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Banjarnegara SMAN 1 Purwareja Klampok
96 38 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Wonosobo SMA Muh Wonosobo
97 39 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Wonosobo SMAN 1 Wonosobo
98 40 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Boyolali SMAN 1 Boyolali
99 41 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Karanganyar SMAN 1 Karanganyar
100 42 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Sragen SMAN 1 Sragen
101 43 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Grobogan SMAN 1 Purwodadi
102 44 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Blora SMAN 1 Blora
103 45 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Pati SMAN 2 Pati
104 46 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Kudus SMAN 1 Bae Kudus
105 47 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Jepara SMAN 1 Jepara
106 48 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Demak SMAN 1 Demak
107 49 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Temanggung SMAN 2 Temanggung
108 50 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Kendal SMAN 1 Boja
109 51 2009 Jawa Tengah Kab. Pekalongan SMAN 1 Kedungwuni
110 52 2009 Jawa Tengah Kota Surakarta SMA 1 Batik Surakarta
111 53 2009 Jawa Tengah Kota Semarang SMAN 2 Semarang
112 54 2009 Jawa Tengah Kota Pekalongan SMAN 1 Pekalongan
113 55 2009 Jawa Tengah Kota Tegal SMAN 3 Slawi
114 56 2010 Jawa Tengah Kab. Sukoharjo SMAN 1 Sukoharjo
115 57 2010 Jawa Tengah Kab. Kendal SMA Pondok Modern Selamat
116 58 2010 Jawa Tengah Kab. Batang SMAN 1 Batang
117 59 2010 Jawa Tengah Kab. Brebes SMAN 1 Brebes
118 60 2010 Jawa Tengah Kota Semarang SMA Kesatrian Semarang mand
119 61 2010 Jawa Tengah Kota Semarang SMA Theresiana 1 Semarang mand
120 62 2010 Jawa Tengah Kota Semarang SMAN 4 Semarang
121 1 2006 DI Yogyakarta Kab. Bantul SMAN 1 Kasihan
122 2 2006 DI Yogyakarta Kota Yogyakarta SMA Muh 2 Yogyakarta
123 3 2006 DI Yogyakarta Kota Yogyakarta SMAN 1 Yogyakarta
124 4 2006 DI Yogyakarta Kota Yogyakarta SMAN 3 Yogyakarta
125 5 2007 DI Yogyakarta Kab. Sleman SMA Kolese De Britto
126 6 2007 DI Yogyakarta Kab. Gunung Kidul SMAN 1 Wonosari
127 7 2007 DI Yogyakarta Kota Yogyakarta SMA BOPKRI 1
128 8 2007 DI Yogyakarta Kota Yogyakarta SMA Muh 1 Yogyakarta
129 9 2007 DI Yogyakarta Kota Yogyakarta SMA Stella Duce 1
130 10 2007 DI Yogyakarta Kota Yogyakarta SMAN 2 Yogyakarta
131 11 2007 DI Yogyakarta Kota Yogyakarta SMAN 8 Yogyakarta
132 12 2009 DI Yogyakarta Kab. Bantul SMAN 1 Bantul
133 13 2009 DI Yogyakarta Kab. Sleman SMAN 1 Kalasan
134 14 2009 DI Yogyakarta Kab. Sleman SMAN 1 Sleman
135 15 2009 DI Yogyakarta Kab. Kulon Progo SMAN 2 Wates
136 1 2006 Jawa Timur Kab. Gresik SMAN 1 Gresik
137 2 2006 Jawa Timur Kab. Sidoarjo SMAN 1 Sidoarjo
138 3 2006 Jawa Timur Kab. Jombang SMA Darul Ulum 2
139 4 2006 Jawa Timur Kab. Jombang SMAN 1 Mojoagung
140 5 2006 Jawa Timur Kab. Bojonegoro SMAN 1 Bojonegoro
141 6 2006 Jawa Timur Kab. Tuban SMAN 1 Tuban
142 7 2006 Jawa Timur Kab. Jember SMA Negeri 1 Jember
143 8 2006 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMA Khadijah Surabaya
144 9 2006 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMAN 15 Surabaya
145 10 2006 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMAN 5 Surabaya
146 11 2006 Jawa Timur Kota Malang SMAN 3 Malang
147 12 2006 Jawa Timur Kota Madiun SMAN 3 Madiun
148 13 2006 Jawa Timur Kota Kediri SMAN 2 Kediri
149 14 2007 Jawa Timur Kab. Sidoarjo SMAN 1 Krian Sidoarjo
150 15 2007 Jawa Timur Kab. Pacitan SMAN 1 Pacitan
151 16 2007 Jawa Timur Kab. Pasuruan SMAN 1 Bangil
152 17 2007 Jawa Timur Kab. Pasuruan SMAN 1 Pandaan
153 18 2007 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMA Muh 2 Surabaya
154 19 2007 Jawa Timur Kota Malang SMA Kristen ST. Albertus
155 20 2007 Jawa Timur Kota Malang SMAN 5 Malang
156 21 2007 Jawa Timur Kota Blitar SMAN 1 Blitar
157 22 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Gresik SMA Muh 1 Gresik
158 23 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Gresik SMAN 1 Manyar
159 24 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Sidoarjo SMA Muh 2 Sidoarjo
160 25 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Mojokerto SMAN 1 Mojosari
161 26 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Mojokerto SMAN 1 Sooko
162 27 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Jombang SMAN 2 Jombang
163 28 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Tuban SMAN 2 Tuban
164 29 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Lamongan SMAN 1 Lamongan
165 30 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Lamongan SMAN 2 Lamongan
166 31 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Ngawi SMAN 2 Ngawi
167 32 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Ponorogo SMA Muh 1 Ponorogo
168 33 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Ponorogo SMAN 1 Ponorogo
169 34 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Kediri SMA Ar Risalah Kediri
170 35 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Kediri SMAN 2 Pare
171 36 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Blitar SMAN 1 Talun
172 37 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Tulungagung SMAN 1 Boyolangu
173 38 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Trenggalek SMAN 1 Trenggalek
174 39 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Malang SMAN 1 Kepanjen
175 40 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Lumajang SMAN 2 Lumajang
176 41 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Bondowoso SMAN 2 Bondowoso
177 42 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Banyuwangi SMAN 1 Giri
178 43 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Pamekasan SMAN 1 Pamekasan
179 44 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Sampang SMAN 1 Sampang
180 45 2009 Jawa Timur Kab. Sumenep SMAN 1 Sumenep
181 46 2009 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMAN 2 Surabaya
182 47 2009 Jawa Timur Kota Kediri SMAN 1 Kediri
183 48 2009 Jawa Timur Kota  Mojokerto SMAN 2 Mojokerto
184 49 2009 Jawa Timur Kota Probolinggo SMAN 1 Probolinggo
185 50 2009 Jawa Timur Kota Batu SMAN 1 Batu
186 51 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Magetan SMAN 1 Magetan
187 52 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Magetan SMAN 1 Maospati
188 53 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Nganjuk SMAN 2 Nganjuk
189 54 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Pasuruan SMAN 1 Grati
190 55 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Probolinggo SMAN 1 Krasakan
191 56 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Situbondo SMAN 1 Situbondo
192 57 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Jember SMAN 1 Kencong
193 58 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Jember SMAN 2 Jember
194 59 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Banyuwangi SMAN 2 Genteng
195 60 2010 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMA Al Hikmah Surabaya mand
196 61 2010 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMAN 1 Surabaya
197 62 2010 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMAN 13 Surabaya
198 63 2010 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMAN 19 Surabaya
199 64 2010 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMAN 20 Surabaya
200 65 2010 Jawa Timur Kota Surabaya SMAN 21 Surabaya
201 66 2010 Jawa Timur Kota Malang SMAN 1 Malang
202 67 2010 Jawa Timur Kota Malang SMAN 4 Malang
203 68 2010 Jawa Timur Kota Malang SMAN 8 Malang
204 69 2010 Jawa Timur Kab. Madiun SMAN 2 Madiun
205 1 2007 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Kab. Aceh Besar SMAN 2 Modal Bangsa
206 2 2007 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Kota Banda Aceh SMAN 2 Banda Aceh
207 3 2009 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Kab. Aceh Tengah SMAN 4 Takengon
208 4 2009 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Kab. Aceh Barat SMAN 4 Wira
209 5 2009 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Kab. Bireun SMA Sukmabangsa
210 6 2010 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Kota Banda Aceh SMA Lab-School Unsyah Aceh
211 7 2010 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Kota Lhokseumawe SMAN 1 Lhoksumawe
212 8 2010 Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Kota Langsa SMAN 1 Langsa
213 1 2006 Sumatera Utara Kab. Tapanuli Tengah SMAN 1 Matauli Pandan
214 2 2006 Sumatera Utara Kab. Tapanuli Selatan SMAN 2 Plus Sipirok
215 3 2006 Sumatera Utara Kab. Toba Samosir SMAN 2 Balige
216 4 2006 Sumatera Utara Kota Medan SMA Sutomo 1 Medan mand
217 5 2006 Sumatera Utara Kota Medan SMAN I Medan
218 6 2006 Sumatera Utara Kab. Ogan Komiring Ilir SMAN 1 Kayuagung
219 7 2007 Sumatera Utara Kab. Karo SMAN 1 Berastagi
220 8 2007 Sumatera Utara Kota Tebing Tinggi SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi
221 9 2009 Sumatera Utara Kab. Deli Serdang SMAN 1 Lubuk Pakam
222 10 2009 Sumatera Utara Kab. Dairi SMAN 1 Sidikalang
223 11 2009 Sumatera Utara Kab. Asahan SMAN 2 Kisaran
224 1 2006 Sumatera Barat Kab. Pasaman SMAN 1 Lubuk Sikaping
225 2 2006 Sumatera Barat Kota Bukit Tinggi SMAn 1 Bukit Tinggi
226 3 2006 Sumatera Barat Kota Padang SMAN 1 Padang
227 4 2006 Sumatera Barat Kota Padang SMAN 10 Padang
228 5 2006 Sumatera Barat Kota Padang Panjang SMAN 1 Padang Panjang
229 6 2007 Sumatera Barat Kota Payakumbuh SMAN 1 Payakumbuh
230 7 2009 Sumatera Barat Kota Padang Pariaman SMAN 1 Lubuk Alung
231 8 2009 Sumatera Barat Kota Bukittinggi SMAN 3 Bukittinggi
232 9 2010 Sumatera Barat Kab. Pesisir Selatan SMAN 2 Painan
233 10 2010 Sumatera Barat Kota Padang SMAN 3 Padang
234 1 2006 Riau Kota Pekanbaru SMAN 8 Pekanbaru
235 2 2006 Riau Kota Pekanbaru SMAN Plus Propinsi Riau
236 3 2006 Riau Kota Pekanbaru SMA Babussalam Pekanbaru
237 4 2007 Riau Kota Pekanbaru SMA Cendana Pekanbaru
238 5 2009 Riau Kab. Kampar SMAN 1 Bangkinang
239 6 2009 Riau Kab. Palelawan SMAN 1 Pangkalan Kerinci
240 1 2006 Jambi Kab. Muaro Jambi SMA Titian Teras
241 2 2009 Jambi Kab. Batang Hari SMAN 1 Batanghari
242 3 2010 Jambi Kota Jambi SMAN BI
243 1 2006 Sumatera Selatan Kab. Musi Banyuasin SMAN 2 Sekayu
244 2 2006 Sumatera Selatan Kota Palembang SMA Kusuma Bangsa
245 3 2006 Sumatera Selatan Kota Palembang SMA Xaverius 1 Palembang
246 4 2006 Sumatera Selatan Kota Palembang SMAN 17 Palembang
247 5 2007 Sumatera Selatan Kab. Lahat SMAN 4 Lahat
248 6 2009 Sumatera Selatan Kab. Ogan Komering Ilir SMAN 3 Unggulan Kayuagung
249 7 2009 Sumatera Selatan Kota Prabumulih SMAN 2 Prabumulih
250 8 2009 Sumatera Selatan Kota Lubuklinggau SMA Xaverius Lubuklinggau
251 1 2006 Lampung Kab. Lampung Tengah SMAN 1 Kotagajah
252 2 2006 Lampung Kota Metro SMAN 1 Metro
253 3 2007 Lampung Kab. Pringsewu SMAN 1 Gadingrejo
254 4 2007 Lampung Kota Bandar Lampung SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung
255 5 2007 Lampung Kota Bandar Lampung SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung
256 6 2009 Lampung Kab. Lampung Timur SMAN 1 Way Jepara
257 7 2010 Lampung Kab. Lampung Barat SMAN 1 Liwa
258 1 2006 Kalimantan Selatan Kota Banjarmasin SMAN 1 Banjarmasin
259 2 2006 Kalimantan Selatan Kota Banjarmasin SMAN 7 Banjarmasin
260 1 2007 Kalimantan Barat Kota Pontianak SMAN 2 Pontianak
262 2 2009 Kalimantan Barat Kota Pontianak SMA Santo Petrus
263 3 2009 Kalimantan Barat Kota Singkawang SMAN 1 Singkawang
264 1 2009 Kalimantan Selatan Kab. Hulu Sungai Selatan SMAN 2 Kandangan
265 2 2009 Kalimantan Selatan Kab. Hulu Sungai Utara SMAN 1 Amuntai
266 3 2010 Kalimantan Selatan Kab. Tabalong SMAN 1 Tanjung
261 1 2007 Kalimantan Tengah Kota Palalangkaraya SMAN 5 Palangkaraya
269 2 2009 Kalimantan Tengah Kota Palangkaraya SMAN 2 Palangkaraya
272 1 2006 Kalimantan Timur Kota Samarinda SMAN 10 Samarinda
273 2 2006 Kalimantan Timur Kota Samarinda SMAN 1 Samarinda
274 3 2006 Kalimantan Timur Kota Balikpapan SMAN 1 Balikpapan
275 4 2006 Kalimantan Timur Kota Bontang SMAN 1 Bontang
276 5 2007 Kalimantan Timur Kota Balikpapan SMAN 5 Balikpapan
277 6 2007 Kalimantan Timur Kota Tarakan SMAN 1 Tarakan
278 7 2007 Kalimantan Timur Kota Bontang SMA YPVDP Bontang
279 8 2009 Kalimantan Timur Kab. Paser SMAN 1 Tanah Grogot
280 9 2009 Kalimantan Timur Kab. Bulongan SMAN 1 Tanjung Selor
281 10 2009 Kalimantan Timur Kota Bontang SMA Yayasan Pupuk Kaltim
282 11 2010 Kalimantan Timur Kab. Berau SMAN 1 Berau
283 1 2006 Sulawesi Utara Kota Manado SMAN 9 Manado
284 2 2006 Sulawesi Utara Kota Manado SMA Kristen Eben Haezar Manado
285 3 2006 Sulawesi Utara Kota Tomohon SMA Lokon
286 4 2009 Sulawesi Utara Kab. Minahasa SMAN 1 Tondano
287 5 2009 Sulawesi Utara Kota Bitung SMAN 2 Bitung
288 1 2007 Sulawesi Tengah Kota Palu SMAN 2 Palu
289 2 2009 Sulawesi Tengah Kota Palu SMAN 5 Palu
290 3 2010 Sulawesi Tengah Kota Palu SMAN 1 Model Terpadu Madani
291 4 2006 Sulawesi Selatan Kab. Gowa SMAN 2 Tinggimoncong
292 5 2006 Sulawesi Selatan Kab. Bone SMAN 1 Tellusiatingge
293 6 2006 Sulawesi Selatan Kab. Toraja Utara SMA Kristen Barana
294 7 2006 Sulawesi Selatan Kota Makassar SMA Islam Athirah Makassaar
295 8 2006 Sulawesi Selatan Kota Makasar SMAN 17 Makasar
296 9 2006 Sulawesi Selatan Kota Makasar SMAN 15 Makasar
297 10 2007 Sulawesi Selatan Kota Palopo SMAn 3 Palopo
298 11 2009 Sulawesi Selatan Kab. Takalar SMAN 1 Takalar
299 12 2009 Sulawesi Selatan Kab. Barru SMAN 1 Barru
300 13 2009 Sulawesi Selatan Kab. Wajo SMAN 2 Sengkang
301 14 2009 Sulawesi Selatan Kab. Pinrang SMAN 1 Pinrang
302 15 2009 Sulawesi Selatan Kota Makassar SMAN 1 Makassar
303 16 2010 Sulawesi Selatan Kota Pare pare SMAN 5 Parepare
304 1 2007 Sulawesi Tenggara Kota Kendari SMAN 1 Kendari
305 2 2009 Sulawesi Tenggara Kab. Muna SMAN 2 Raha
306 3 2009 Sulawesi Tenggara Kota Kendari SMAN 4 Kendari
307 1 2009 Maluku Kota Ambon SMAN 1 Ambon
308 2 2009 Maluku Kota Ambon SMAN Siwa Lima
309 1 2006 Bali Kab. Buleleng SMAN 1 Singaraja
310 2 2006 Bali Kab. Gianyar SMAN 1 Gianyar
311 3 2006 Bali Ubud SMAN 1 Ubud
312 4 2006 Bali Kota Denpasar SMAN 4 Denpasar
313 5 2006 Bali Kota Denpasar SMAN 1 Denpasar
314 6 2007 Bali Kab. Tabanan SMAN 1 Tabanan
315 7 2007 Bali Kab. Semarapura SMAN 2 Semarapura
316 8 2007 Bali Kab. Bangli SMAN 1 Bangli
317 9 2007 Bali Kota Denpasar SMAN 5 Ddenpasar
318 10 2009 Bali Kab. Badung SMAN 1 Kuta Utara
319 11 2009 Bali Kab. Karangasem SMAN 2 Amlapura
320 12 2009 Bali Kota Denpasar SMAN 3 Denpasar
321 1 2006 Nusa Tenggara Barat Kab. Lombok Tengah SMAN 1 Praya
322 2 2007 Nusa Tenggara Barat Kab. Sumbawa SMAN 2 Sumbawa
323 3 2007 Nusa Tenggara Barat Kota Mataram SMAN 1 Mataram
324 4 2009 Nusa Tenggara Barat Kota Mataram SMAN 5 Mataram
325 5 2009 Nusa Tenggara Barat Kota Bima SMAN 1 Bima
326 6 2007 Nusa Tenggara Timur Kota Kupang SMAN 3 Kupang
327 1 2007 Papua Kota Jayapura SMAN 3 Jayapura
328 2 2009 Papua Kab. Merauke SMAN 3 Merauke
329 3 2009 Papua Kab. Mimika SMAN 1 Mimika
267 1 2007 Bengkulu Kab. Rejang Lebong SMAN 1 Curup Selatan
268 2 2007 Bengkulu Kota Bengkulu SMAN 2 Bengkulu
270 3 2009 Bengkulu Kab. Bengkulu Utara SMAN 1 Argamakmur
271 4 2009 Bengkulu Kota Bengkulu SMAN 5 Bengkulu
330 1 2006 Maluku Utara Ternate SMAN 1 Ternate
331 2 2009 Maluku Utara Kota Ternate SMAN 4 Ternate
332 1 2006 Banten Kota Serang SMAN 1 Serang
333 2 2006 Banten Kota Cilegon SMAN 2 Krakatau Stil Cilegon
334 3 2006 Banten Kab. Tangerang SMAN 1 Tangerang
335 4 2006 Banten Kota Tangerang Selatan SMA Islam Al-Azhar BSD
336 5 2006 Banten Kota Tangerang Selatan SMAN 3 Tangerang Selatan
337 6 2007 Banten Kab. Tangerang SMAN 8 Tangerang
338 7 2007 Banten Kota Tangerang Selatan SMAN 2 Kota Tangsel
339 8 2009 Banten Kab. Pandeglang SMAN 4 Pandeglang
340 9 2009 Banten Kab. Pandeglang SMAN Cahaya Madani Banten
341 10 2009 Banten Kota Tangerang Selatan SMA Pemb. Jaya Bintaro
342 11 2010 Banten Kab. Tangerang SMA Daar El-Qolam
343 12 2010 Banten Kota Tangerang Selatan SMA Santa Laurensia mand
344 1 2007 Bangka Belitung Kab. Belitung Timur SMAN 1 Manggar
345 2 2007 Bangka Belitung Kota Pangkal Pinang SMAN 1 Pangkal Pinang
346 3 2009 Bangka Belitung Kab. Bangka SMAN 1 Sungailiat
347 1 2007 Gorontalo Kota Gorontalo SMAN 3 Gorontalo
348 2 2009 Gorontalo Kab. Gorontalo SMAN 1 Limboto
349 3 2009 Gorontalo Kab. Gorontalo SMAN 1 Telaga
350 4 2009 Gorontalo Kota Gorontalo SMAN 1 Gorontalo
351 1 2006 Kepulauan Riau Kota Batam SMAN 1 Batam
352 2 2007 Kepulauan Riau Kota Tanjung Pinang SMAN 1 Tanjung Pinang
353 3 2009 Kepulauan Riau Kota Batam SMAN 3 Batam
354 1 2009 Papua Barat Kota Manokwari SMAN 1 Manokwari
355 2 2010 Papua Barat Kota Sorong SMAN 1 Sorong
356 1 2007 Sulawesi Barat Majene SMAN 2 Majene
357 2 2009 Sulawesi Barat Kab. Polewali Mandar SMAN 1 Polewali

Sumber : Dit. PSMA Kemdiknas

Langganan: Postingan (Atom)