Education reforms in Indonesia in the twenty-first century

International Education Journal, 2007, 8(1), 172-183.
ISSN 1443-1475 © 2007 Shannon Research Press.
http://iej.com.au
172
Education reforms in Indonesia in the twenty-first
century
Raihani
University of Melbourne, Australia raihani@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au

This article examines the reforms in education that have been occurring in Indonesia
following the socio-political change marked by the fall of the Soeharto regime.
Democratic citizens are now desired explicitly in the 2003 Education Act. As the
decentralisation policy in governance has been implemented, autonomy in education
has resulted in several consequent reforms. School Based Management has been
chosen as a new paradigm in school management, while the new curriculum focuses
on competency-based principles and school-based development. However, obstacles
including cultural and economical barriers are assumed potentially to hinder the
success of the implementation of reforms, if not carefully and appropriately handled.
Indonesian education; school-based management; competency-based curriculum;
education reform; education autonomy

INTRODUCTION
Since the fall of the New Order1 regime in 1998 in Indonesia, many changes have been or are
occurring. In terms of policy, the restriction to two periods of the presidency, direct election, and
the implementation of the policy of autonomy are among the significant reforms. These changes
have had an impact on education. However, information about such changes and the impact in
Indonesia, written in scholarly articles and internationally accessible, is hardly found. This article
is, therefore, in a way intended to reduce the lack of information by examining educational
reforms in Indonesia around the turn of the twenty-first century and presenting it to international
readers. The first section describes the change in objectives of Indonesian education, taking The
2003 Education Act into account. The second section examines the recent education management
reform following the implementation of The Regional Autonomy Act in 1999. This reform was
marked by the implementation of School-Based Management (SBM) as a new paradigm in school
management. The third section reviews the reform in school curricula that now focus on a
competency-based approach in teaching processes and a school-based approach in its
development. Finally, this article points out several challenges that are likely to hinder the success
of the implementation of such reforms, if they are not handled appropriately.

1 New Order or Orde Baru is a term used to refer to a period of Indonesian modern history after the fall of Sukarno
(Old Order or Orde Lama) in 1966. The changing order was marked with the coup de état of the PKI (Indonesian
Communist Party) on the 31st of September, 1965. In 1966, General Soeharto took power and became the second
Indonesian president. In 1998, following the severe economical crisis that hit Asian countries including Indonesia,
Soeharto was forced to resign, and the New Order regime collapsed. The current order, frequently called the Reform
Era, began.

---

Raihani
173
OBJECTIVES OF INDONESIAN EDUCATION
In accordance with the socio-political changes, the Acts2 associated with the Indonesian national
education system have been issued several times after Independence in 1945 up to the most recent
time including in 1950, 1956, 1989, (Poerbakawatja, 1970; Tilaar, 1995) and in 2003. The 2003
Act (Indonesian National Education System Act or INESA) is regarded as important since
Indonesia has undergone dramatic recent changes particularly in the political system with the
movement from authoritarianism to democracy, which started shortly after the fall of the Soeharto
or New Order regime in 1998. The governance system has also changed, from centralist to
decentralist or, rather, to what is popularly termed as ‘otonomi yang lebih luas’ meaning a ‘wider
autonomy’ (Jalal & Supriadi, 2001).
As stated in INESA 2003, national education is aimed at developing each student’s potential to
become people with faith and piety towards God the Only One, good morality, good health,
knowledge, intelligence, creativity, independence, and to become democratic and responsible
citizens [my translation] (Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2003d, 2, article 2). There is an
emphasis in The Act on religious and moral values, intellectual competences, and democratic
values.
Although Indonesia is not a theocratic country, the people put religion as one of the main
considerations in their activities. Indeed, UUD (the State Constitution) 1945 emphasises that each
citizen must adhere to a religion (Ministry of Public Religion (MPR), 2003). There are now at
least five religions formally recognised by the Indonesian Government, the main ones being
Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. It can be understood, therefore, that
religion plays an influential role in almost every aspect of life in Indonesia including education
(Novera, 2004). Religious values are taken as one of the educational standards and objectives.
These values are expected to become an integrated part of students’ personality, and to be
manifested in their morality (Tilaar, 1999). These religious and moral objectives have been
repeated explicitly in each Indonesian Education Act (Poerbakawatja, 1970; Tilaar, 1995), though
there has been an ongoing apprehensiveness that such objectives have not been achieved
(Adimassana, 2000; Sudarminta, 2000).
As education should be able to develop specific cognitive, psychomotor, and affective objectives
(Bloom, 1956), practising religious morality is not sufficient for children to survive in this
competitive era. A range of attributes is needed such as the basic competences and life skills
(Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1999; Blank, 1982; Bloom, 1956; Cameron, 1986; Campbell,
1996; Metais, 1999). However, as Muhaimin, Suti’ah, and Ali (2001) and Darmaningtyas (2004)
have pointed out critically, the Indonesian education system has so far placed a heavy emphasis
on cognitive attainment by students. Knowledge learnt and mastered by students has been
separated from its application (Darmaningtyas, 2004). Learning objectives would seem to have
beeen formulated for students to meet certain targets of curriculum content without sufficient
attention being given to the issue of how the learnt knowledge was to be applied in real life (Joni,
2000). Consequently, many school graduates are unable to take active roles in the community and
survive at a time when change and competition have become common features (Darmaningtyas,
2004; Joni, 2000; Tilaar, 1999).
After the fall of the Soeharto or New Order regime, Indonesia underwent a dramatic change,
particularly in terms of the political system, as it moved from authoritarianism to democracy. This

2 The Education Acts in Indonesia are explicitly mentioned in the Indonesian 1945 Constitution (Undang-Undang
Dasar 1945) for government to issue as a legal foundation for the establishment of the national education system. The
constitution says, ‘each citizen has the right to education’, and ‘government must carry out a national education
system, which is arranged by national acts’ (MPR, 2003).

---

174
Education reforms in Indonesia in the twenty-first century
has had a great impact on education, as education cannot be separated from politics (Jalal &
Supriadi, 2001). Students need to be enlightened to the democratic values and practices, as
indicated in INESA 2003. Hochschild and Scovronick (2002) stated that schools were a crucial
locus for educating children to become democratic citizens, who contributed to constructing and
sustaining a democratic country. Azra (2002) argued that a democratic governance system had
become an unavoidable trend since the fall of the Soeharto regime, because of both global and
local demands. Thus, an important stage for Indonesians has been reached in that the phrase
‘warga Negara yang demokratis’ (democratic citizens) was explicitly put in The 2003 Act, and
was absent in The 1989 Act, as one of the objectives of education.
These three aspects of objectives are to be integrated into the personalities of Indonesian children.
They are expected to exercise religious and moral practices and values, be intelligent, have life
skills, be democratic, and be responsible to the nation. These objectives certainly have significant
implications for other parts of the national education system, particularly management and
curriculum.
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT REFORM
As described earlier, the current political reform, marked initially with the fall of the Suharto
regime in 1998, had an impact on education. The decentralisation policy in the governance of the
state had significantly influenced educational management and the curriculum. As a result, in
1999, ‘Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah’ or school-based management (SBM) was introduced to
reduce the severe dominance of the central (Jakarta) authority over almost every aspect of
schooling.
According to the World Bank Report in 1998, Indonesia had had very centralised management
with regard to education until 1999 (The World Bank, 1998). The central educational authority
determined almost every aspect of schooling, while subordinate authorities (offices at the
provincial and district levels) only had to implement the policies. Consequently, as the World
Bank concluded, that there were ineffective institutional arrangements in the Indonesian
education system. These ineffective arrangements resulted in some major constraints:
a) a division of responsibility for delivery of primary education among various government
agencies and ministries which resulted in a lack of accountability for results;
b) overly centralised management at the junior secondary level;
c) little autonomy for principals and lower level managers, leading to ineffective school
management;
d) a fragmented and rigid budgetary process; and
e) civil service incentive structures that did not reward good teaching practices and led to an
uneven allocation of teachers in schools (Jiyono et al., 2001; The World Bank, 1998).
In line with the centralised management, as Umaedi (2001) and Jalal and Supriadi (2001) stated,
Indonesian educational management had been very largely macro-oriented. Tilaar (1999)
explained that the policies about school affairs were issued heavily based on macro educational
analysis. Bjork (2003) and Tilaar agreed (1999) that policy based on case studies was hardly ever
found. Consequently, different needs of particular schools were not addressed on an individual
basis. All schools received the same treatment.
It is through Act No.22/1999 of Otonomi Daerah (Regional Autonomy) that an ever-major
decentralisation of the country’s policies and management has occurred. According to Jalal and
Supriadi (2001, pp.124-5), the objectives of the decentralisation are to:
1. lessen the central government’s burden and its interventions over local problems;

---

Raihani
175
2. improve people’s understanding and their support for social and economic development;
3. plan better programs of social and economic improvement at the local level;
4. train people to manage their own affairs; and
5. strengthen the national unity.
In the field of education, the decentralisation policy was not only a national issue, but also a
global movement. Bjork (2003) explained that in recent years international funding organisations
have provided a large amount of money for the promotion of the decentralisation of education
systems around the globe. Proponents of this approach argued that decentralisation would result
in one or more of these following outcomes: (a) redistribution of power, (b) increased efficiency,
or (c) greater sensitivity to local culture (Bjork, 2003). These three outcomes corresponded to the
problems that Indonesia had faced owing to the overlapping and centralised management, as
indicated previously.
Although the decentralisation of education had previously been one of the growing concerns of
the New Order regime marked, for instance, by The Government Act No.28/1990 (Jalal &
Supriadi, 2001; Tilaar, 1999), there was no serious change made in the early 1990s in that regard.
Criticisms on the implementation of such an Act and related decisions included both the lack of
political will to implement such decentralisation, and the limited scope of decentralised matters,
which covered only school physical development and maintenance (Jalal & Supriadi, 2001). This
did not touch the more fundamental aspects of education, such as curriculum and instruction, and
managerial issues, such as budget and recruitment of teachers and other staff.
However, the current decentralisation policy in education was marked significantly by the
introduction of School-Based Management (SBM) to primary and secondary schools in 1999
(Jalal & Supriadi, 2001; Umaedi, 2001). This introduction has been one way of implementing the
policy of educational autonomy embedded in Act No. 22/1999. This also corresponds to the global
perspective that SBM is now becoming a common phenomenon, believed to be a promising
means for whole school improvement. Advocates of this approach have argued that within SBM
schools, where democratic structure and culture were promoted, improvements in all aspects of
school became more feasible and possible (Caldwell & Spinks, 1998; Cheng, 1996; Everard &
Morris, 1996; Gamage, Sipple, & Partridge, 1996; Mohrman, Wohlstetter, & Associates, 1994;
Wohlstetter, Van Kirk, Robertson, & Mohrman, 1997).
Umaedi, the former Director of Secondary Education of the Ministry of National Education
(MNE), asserted that SBM in Indonesia had been implemented to improve school quality
(Umaedi, 2001). Therefore, some functions were being decentralised with which individual
schools were supposed to deal in the sense that they were given a greater proportion of the
responsibility and power of doing so. The developed functions include learning and teaching
processes, school program planning and evaluation, curriculum development, staff management
and recruitment, resources and facilities maintenance, finance management, student services,
school-community partnership, and school culture development (2001, p.22).
Translating the above plan, Jiyono et al. (2001, pp.161-3) proposed a model for Indonesian SBM,
which had five basic components – management, teaching and learning processes, human
resources, resources and administration, and school council.
1. Management focuses on: (a) providing school organisational management and leadership,
(b) developing school planning and policies, (c) managing school operations, (d) ensuring
an established effective communication between school and the community, (e)
encouraging the community participation, and (f) maintaining the school accountability.

---

176
Education reforms in Indonesia in the twenty-first century
2. Teaching and learning process functions to (a) improve the students’ learning, (b) develop
suitable learning programs to meet students’ needs, (c) offer effective instructions, and (d)
provide students with personality development programs.
3. Human resources function to (a) distribute and place staff with the ability to fulfil
students’ needs, (b) select staff with knowledge of SBM, (c) promote continuous
professional development, (d) ensure the prosperity of staff and students, and (e) promote
discussions of school processes.
4. Resources and administration function to (a) identify and allocate the resources available
in accordance with the needs, (b) manage school funds, (c) provide supporting
administration, and (d) provide for the building maintenance.
5. The school committee, comprising the active participation of community leaders,
professionals, principals, teacher representatives, the district education authority
representatives, and parent representatives, is responsible to elect the principal, collect
money, control school finance sourcing from the community, block grant, central
government’s funds (except salary), and be involved in curriculum development.
In order for each above component to function properly, Jiyono et al. (2001) set up two pre-
requisites. (1) Funds should be allocated and directly given to individual schools, contrasting with
the long tradition in which funds were given to schools through long bureaucratic lines. (2) SBM-
skilled staff should be available in the first instance in order to support and ensure effective
implementation. Once these two pre-requisites were met, according to Jiyono et al. (2001), the
implementation of SBM in Indonesia was on track. Unfortunately, until now, the investigator has
not found from the accessible literature, so far, any research-based evidence of how SBM has
been implemented.
Some Indonesian school principals, who were participating in a workshop of SBM conducted by
the Managing Basic Education (MBE)3, have defined the characteristics essential to Indonesian
SBM. While these characteristics were indeed not drawn from the factual phenomena of the
Indonesian SBM through a scientific inquiry, they importantly revealed the principals’
understandings and expectations of SBM. The characteristics were as follows:
1. The vision and mission of the school are formulated by the principal, teachers,
representative of students, school alumni and other stakeholders.
2. There is a school development plan based on this vision and mission.
3. A school budget plan, in line with the school development plan, is developed transparently
by the principal, teachers, and school committee.
4. School autonomy is realised, as shown by the school becoming more self-supporting and
focused on meeting local needs.
5. There is participatory and democratic decision-making.
6. The school is open to criticism, input, and suggestions from anyone to improve the
program.
7. Everyone at school is committed to carrying out the agreed vision and mission.
8. All the potential of school stakeholders is utilised to achieve the goal.

3 Managing Basic Education (MBE) is a project of improving basic education in Indonesia within the framework of
SBM. This project is funded by USAID, and conducted in several districts in Java. Further information of MBE can
be accessed on http://www.mbeproject.net/.

---

Raihani
177
9. There is a working atmosphere conducive to improving school performance.
10. There is an ability to create a sense of pride among staff and the local community.
11. There is transparency and public accountability in implementing all activities (Managing
Basic Education (MBE) Project).
These characteristics indicate implicitly some fundamental issues of SBM including: (a) school
governances structure, (b) school autonomy, (c) shared decision-making, (d) school curriculum,
(e) school management and leadership, and (f) staff professional development. However, the
characteristics are not systematically conceptualised. Rubiannoor (2003), in his study of the
principal’s roles in implementing the SBM in a school in South Kalimantan, concluded that the
principal was found to have understood his new role in the SBM implementation: (a) developing
the school vision and mission, (b) setting strategies for quality improvement, and (c)
implementing participative management. However, since the school was only at the stage of
preparing for the SBM implementation, proper assessment of the implementation phase could not
be done. He also found that human resources such as staff and teacher readiness cognitively,
mentally, and culturally were among the problems that might hinder the success of the
implementation (Rubiannor, 2003, pp.146-9).
SCHOOL CURRICULUM REFORM
According to Mohrman et al. (1994) and Wohlstetter, Van Kirk, Robertson and Mohrman (1997),
SBM should be seen as part of a more systemic set of changes, not as an isolated innovation,
since it would not automatically improve the schools’ and students’ performance. A systemic set
of changes in the SBM schools should encompass the introduction of new approaches to teaching
and learning. In other words, structural reform through SBM implementation should happen side-
by-side with, and connected strongly to, curriculum and instruction reform (Wohlstetter et al.,
1997).
In line with the above argument, and following SBM implementation, the Indonesian Education
Authority introduced a new curriculum: Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi (KBK: Competency-
Based Curriculum) in 2003. This curriculum began to be implemented in 2004. Therefore, the
official name for this curriculum was Kurikulum 2004 (the 2004 curriculum). According to MNE,
this new curriculum put an emphasis on standardised competences that the students were to
achieve and on a greater authority for the school stakeholders to participate in the curriculum
development. Kwartolo (2002) explained that the aim of the 2004 Curriculum implementation
was to produce the outcome of students with strong personality, and good competences and skills,
in order that they would be able to develop successfully further such qualities either in the
workforce or in higher education, and interact with the social, cultural, and natural environments.
A comparison between the 2004 Curriculum and the previous one, provided by the MNE (2003c),
is summarised in Table 1. This comparison indicates, as Joni (2000), Sindhunata (2000), and Jalal
and Supriadi (2001) suggest, in that the previous curriculum was material-oriented, overloaded
with content, and centralist in its development.
The MNE (2003b, pp.35-7) also provided clear guidelines for curriculum development and
management at every level—central and local authority, as well as school. The central authority
plays the role of providing professional services for the regional or local curriculum developers,
and seminars and workshops for quality curriculum improvement. The provincial authority
functions to serve, support, monitor, and control syllabus implementation in the districts.
Meanwhile, the district authority serves and supports the development, evaluation, and refinement
of syllabuses. It also creates guidelines for schools in developing syllabuses, forms a team of the
district syllabus developers, helps and analyses the school syllabus, and supervises and monitors

---

178
Education reforms in Indonesia in the twenty-first century
syllabus development and implementation. Schools are expected to develop their own syllabus, or
use other schools’ syllabus, and to coordinate actively with the District to develop the syllabus.
Table 1. A Comparison of the 1994 and 2004 Curricula
Similarities
1994 Curriculum
2004 Curriculum
• 9 year compulsory learning
• 9 year compulsory learning
• emphasis on abilities of reading, writing, and
• emphasis on abilities of reading, writing, and
arithmetical functions
arithmetical functions
• essential concepts and materials in each subject to
• essential concepts and materials in each subject to
achieve competences
achieve competences
• local content curriculum
• local content curriculum
• 45 minutes allocated for each learning hour in every • 45 minutes allocated for each learning hour in every
level of school
level of school
Differences
• centralist
• decentralist
• contains no standardised competences
• contains standardised competences
• no activities to familiarise students to content and
• integrated and programmed activities to make
concepts
students familiar with content and concepts
• no ICT
• introduction of ICT
• multiple choice assessment
• classroom-based assessment
• thematic approach for grades 1 & 2 students of
• thematic approach for grades 1 & 2 students of
elementary school (recommended only)
elementary school (compulsory)
• no continuity of competences
• continuity of competences stratification from grades
• no curriculum diversification
1 to 12 (over school levels)
• syllabus developed by the local education authority
• curriculum diversification: special and international
or school depending on needs
curricula
• giving opportunities to teachers, schools, and local
authority for program elaboration and adaptation or
analysis of materials
As indicated in Blank (1982, pp.3-6), competency-based principles are not only related to the
curriculum in the sense of formulating learning objectives and selecting content that is
competency-oriented, but it is also related to the quality of instruction. It is therefore important to
develop the teaching and learning processes that provide students with high quality, carefully
designed, student-centred activities, and with media and materials designed to help them master
each task or ability. For this, the MNE proposed what the teaching and learning process should be
like in the context of the implementation of the 2004 Curriculum.
The MNE (2003a, p.7) defines learning as an active action by students to build meaning and
understanding, while teaching is the responsibility of teachers to create situations supportive to
students’ creativity, motivation, and responsibility for life-long education. The MNE (2003a,
pp.7-11) also provided a list of effective teaching and learning processes that includes the
following principles:
1. Reversed meaning of learning: This refers to a concept of information building and
understanding by students, not knowledge transfer from teacher to student.
2. Student-centredness: Each student is different, and therefore the teaching and learning
process must cater to the individual needs of every student.
3. Learning by experiencing: The process provides students with rich real life experiences
related to the knowledge they are acquiring.
4. Developing social, cognitive, and emotional skills: this puts an emphasis on interaction
and communication during the learning process.

---

Raihani
179
5. Developing curiosity, creative imagination, and the quality of believing in God: The
process facilitates students’ increasing their curiosity and imagination. The process also
creates awareness of the Divine dimension.
6. Life-long learning: The process supplies students with learning skills covering self-
confidence, curiosity, the ability to understand others, and to communicate and work
together with them.
7. Integrated independence and interdependence: This means that the process develops the
spirit of competition within togetherness.
Besides such a list of the components, the MNE provides guidelines for effective teaching and
management of learning. Such guidelines are important for a school’s teachers in the process of
the implementation of the new curriculum (Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2003a). This is
because a comprehensive understanding of such a competency-based approach in teaching, and,
hence, more responsibilities and creativities of teachers, are needed.
OBSTACLES OF IMPLEMENTATION
The literature also suggests some obstacles that might hinder the successful implementation of
SBM and the 2004 Curriculum in relation to the Indonesian educational context. One of the
obstacles lies in the fact that teachers have culturally been accustomed to a centralised system.
Bjork’s (2003) study indicated an insufficient response from teachers to the decentralisation
program in curriculum development. Although the study was conducted in the context of the
Local Curriculum Content (LCC) program in 1998, it is pertinent to mention it here as some
cultural situations may have remained similar between the time of his study and the present.
According to Bjork (2003), three reasons were identified justifying the insufficient teacher
response. First, the civil service culture had prevented teachers from becoming free individuals
who were able to be active, creative, and innovative. The civil service culture was replete with
values of loyalty, obedience, responsibility, cooperation, and the like. As Emmerson (1978)
observed, this culture of transmitters of directives from their superiors rather than representatives
of local communities resulted from the authoritarian practices of the New Order regime for more
than three decades. Bjork (2003, p.205) clearly stated that Indonesian teachers tended to value the
security of their job more than opportunities to influence school policy or to make a difference in
the lives of their students.
Second, there was a lack of rewards and incentives for teachers with new or increased
responsibilities. Teachers, in Bjork’s (2003) observation, did not devote more of their time to
something, which did not provide them with more financial gains. Indeed, it was the budget
constraints that made the Government unable to provide financial rewards to teachers who agree
to take on additional responsibilities. This budget constraint was acknowledged by some experts
such as Sutjipto et al. (2001) who had been involved in formulating the Indonesian education
reform policies. According to a report of Asia Times Online, the Indonesian education budget was
the lowest in Asia, which only amounted to seven percent of the State Budget in 2000, while the
neighbouring countries such as Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand allocate from 25 to
35 percent of their annual budget for education (Asia Times, 2000). The recommendation of the
constitution for allocating 20 percent of the annual budget for education had not been fulfilled.
Third, centre-local relations were still at a more centralised point on the continuum. Although the
central education authority’s officials expressed their commitment to empowering local authority
people, they failed to provide sufficient means and assistance to support their commitment (Bjork,
2003; Rubiannor, 2003). Bjork (2003, p.208) described, “in theory, they [central people] want to
increase local autonomy; in practice, they often undermine that very objective”. Weston, the chief
party of the MBE project, stated, “in many cases their [the government officials] actions

---

180
Education reforms in Indonesia in the twenty-first century
contradict their words (they talk decentralisation but practice a centralised approach). There is no
clear list of functions delegated to school level, and more importantly little funding is allocated to
schools” (personal communication by email, 2003).
Bjork’s (2003) three cultural reasons for the failure of the LCC Program outlined the difficulties
of implementing the educational reform agenda in Indonesia. The centralised long-standing socio-
political situation resulting in a loyalty and obedience culture have influenced negatively the
decentralisation processes. Rubiannoor (2003, p.147) noted that cultures of menunggu perintah
dan meminta petunjuk or ‘waiting for commands and asking for directives’ from higher authority
were hard to change. The current socio-political situations have probably changed since the
reform agenda was launched and the autonomy policy initially implemented, but it will take time
to change the cultural behaviours of teachers and other people working in education.
Finally, the economic condition of parents, as a result of the long economical crisis that Indonesia
has been facing, can become another obstacle to more intensive parental involvement in the
school processes. Some parents may not be able to become involved in, for instance, school
meetings as a consequence of the SBM implementation, since they have to devote their time to
earn their basic living. This situation is even worse for many parents who have to end their
children’s schooling because of their financial difficulties (Hartono & Ehrmann, 2001). While
both the implementation of reform require much more funding to be allocated, the parents’
economical disadvantages prevent them from providing contributions to it. In poor districts,
according to Filmer et al. (1999), this is much more problematic for the schools as the district
government may not be able to provide the necessary funding.
CONCLUSIONS
The Indonesian education system has been undergoing a radical change. This change, triggered
by recent socio-political situations, encompasses at least three major aspects of education. First,
there has been a redefinition of the national education objectives, which put an additional
emphasis on the importance of achieving citizens for living in a democracy. Second, the school
management approach has changed from centralist to decentralist management. This shift is to be
crystallised into the implementation of School-Based Management (SBM). Third, there has been
a shift of paradigm in terms of school curriculum by introducing the 2004 Curriculum, which is
conceptualised in terms of: (a) setting nationally standardised competences for students to attain,
(b) making a clear link between school graduates and job demands, and (c) accommodating local
needs by involving local school stakeholders in the development of their school.
Obstacles that may hinder the success of the implementation of reform need to be dealt
appropriately, or otherwise the reform remains good only on paper. Several recommendations can
be advanced. First, in the framework of community involvement in education, socialisation of
every policy and initiative taken need to be fully carried out. People cannot be left behind as if
they are not one of the stakeholders of education and the schools. This needs to be followed by
the empowerment programs of key stakeholders, parents in particular. Second, leadership at every
level of education needs to be strongly developed as the literature (Fullan, 1999; Leithwood,
Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; MacBeath, 1998) suggests what is necessary at a time of rapid change
is effective leadership that guides and provides directions. Third, the civil servant culture of
teachers needs to be changed into a professional culture. Teachers need to see their work as a
profession with certain responsibilities and sufficient rewards. The Government’s plan to issue
Teacher Professionalism Act in 2005 (Rancangan Undang-Undang Guru) is an appropriate step
to take and is expected to create eventually the professional culture of teachers (Lie, 2005).
Fourth, professional growth needs to be an integral part of the reform and fostered in meaningful
and intentional ways. Fifth, 20 percent or more of the state budget needs to be allocated for
education as recommended by the constitution in order to provide sufficient funding for the
education process. An increase in the budget is needed as well to lessen the severe level of

---

Raihani
181
corruption in education, which is happening at every level of bureaucracy, including the schools
(Irawan, Eriyanto, Djani, & Sunaryanto, 2004). Finally, much research on every aspect of
education in Indonesia needs to be carried out as part of the whole reform agenda to assess and
evaluate the implementation of the reform. Case studies need to be accepted as the most widely
employed approach as they are able to address the individual problems of each aspect studied.
REFERENCES
Adimassana, Y. B. (2000). Revitalisasi Pendidikan Nilai di dalam Sektor Pendidikan Formal. In
A. Atmadi & Y. Setyaningsih (Eds.), Transformasi Pendidikan Memasuki Milenium
Ketiga. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Asia Times. (2000, January 6). Indonesian education fails in face of crisis. Asia Times Online,
(pp. 1-4).
Azra, A. (2002). Pendidikan Kritis, Demokrasi, dan Civil Society. In A. Syahid & A. Al-Jauhari
(Eds.), Bahasa, Pendidikan, dan Agama: 65 Tahun Prof. Dr. Muljanto Sumardi. Jakarta:
Logos.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing Critical Thinking.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302.
Bjork, C. (2003). Local Responses to Decentralisation Policy in Indonesia. Comparative
Education Review, 47(2), 184-216.
Blank, W. E. (1982). Handbook for Developing Competency-Based Training Programs.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals-Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain. London: Longmans.
Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, M. (1998). Beyond The Self-Managing School. London: The Falmer
Press.
Cameron, M. C. (1986). Goals, Objectives and Life Skills: Management for Living. Melbourne:
Longman Cheshire.
Campbell, D. E. (1996). Choosing Democracy: A Practical Guide to Multicultural Education.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cheng, Y. C. (1996). School Effectiveness and School-based Management. London: The Falmer
Press.
Darmaningtyas. (2004). Pendidikan Yang Memiskinkan. Yogyakarta.
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2003a). Kegiatan Belajar Mengajar Yang Efektif. Retrieved
19 September, 2005, from http://www.puskur.or.id
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2003b). Model Pelatihan dan Pengembangan Sylabus.
Retrieved 19 September, 2005, from http://www.puskur.or.id
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2003c). Pengelolaan Kurikulum 2004 di Tingkat Sekolah.
Retrieved 19 September, 2005, from http://www.puskur.or.id
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2003d). Undang-Undang Sistim Pendidikan Nasional Tahun
2003. Retrieved 10 August, 2003, from www.depdiknas.go.id
Emmerson, D. K. (1978). The Bureaucracy in Political Context: Weakness in Strength. In K. D.
Jackson & L. W. Pye (Eds.), Political Power and Communications in Indonesia. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Everard, K. B., & Morris, G. (1996). Effective School Management (3rd ed.). London: Paul
Chapman, Publishing.
Filmer, D., Sayed, H., Boediono, Jiyono, Suwaryani, & Indriyanto. (1999). Impact of Economic
Crisis on Basic Education in Indonesia. Watching Brief: East Asia and the Pacific
Region(2), 1-4.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change Forces: The Sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Gamage, D. T., Sipple, P., & Partridge, P. (1996). Research on School-Based Management in
Victoria. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(1), 24-40.

---