The new curriculum (2013 Curriculum) for education system in Indonesia has been gradually implemented since the beginning of 2013/2014 academic year, July 2013. The Education and Culture Minister, Muhammad Nuh, said that not all schools would implement the 2013 curriculum. It means that this new curriculum will be carried out in stages, and in 2015 all the schools in Indonesia will have been implementing it, including schools in remote areas.
Although the 2013 curriculum offers significant breakthroughs in improving the quality of teaching and learning process, I personally believe that the success of this curriculum depends on how schools apply it. The key words are teachers and students. They determine whether the curriculum can run well or not. The main concept of the 2013 curriculum is excellent. As an effort to improve the nation’s education quality, the new curriculum integrates science and civic education with religious and moral education. Students should be taught to think creatively. Education should be both accurate and offer the best lesson, and this can be achieved by teaching them to be creative.
But, once again, the result of the 2013 curriculum will be seen from its practice, not only from its theoretical framework.
Regarding the implementation of this curriculum, I would like to track back to the previous curriculum. In my mind, School-Based Curriculum (Indonesian: Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan – KTSP), also known as 2006 Curriculum, is actually good enough for Indonesia’s education system. The curriculum enables schools to develop their teaching learning process creatively in accordance with the condition of their schools and society. But the result of the 2006 curriculum is dissatisfying. It seems there is no great improvement in the quality of teaching learning process. The main cause is, as usual, schools are not ready to apply the concept of school-based curriculum. One of the reasons why this happens is because teachers are not often trained by the Education Department to update and upgrade their ability in teaching. English teachers, for example, are not given sufficient and regular training to apply the concept of the approach used in teaching English. Up to these days, it is admitted that there are many English teachers do not master Genre-Based Approach well.
The following writing is a review of school-based curriculum for English teaching and learning. The aim of this article is to discuss the framework of school-based curriculum; its advantages and disadvantages, and some recommendations how to improve it to integrate and succeed the 2013 curriculum. (Source: elihsutisnayanto.wordpress.com, posted by: Elih Sutisna Yanto).
The Framework of The 2006 Curriculum, School-Based Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan – KTSP)
The spirit of decentralization, as showed by act of local autonomy No. 22, 1999 revised by Act of local Autonomy No.32, 2004 and hand in hand with Act No. 20, 2003 has been seen in the 2006 curriculum (KTSP) launched by government. In this case, education is not merely central government’s responsibility; local government also has responsibility in managing and funding education.
Basically the 2006 curriculum (KTSP) is developed from standard of content by schools based their context and potentiality. Although KTSP varies between one and other schools, government gives some regulations stated in Governmental Regulation (PP) No. 19, 2005 concerning National Standard of Education (SNP) at May 16, 2005 such as standard of content and standard of competence of graduate.
English as stated in standard of content (PERMENDIKNAS No 22, 2006) is learned at elementary two hours in a week (as local content [MULOK] for class IV, V and VI), at junior and senior high school four hours in a week except for language program in SMA – five hours in a week.
In addition, the standard competence of graduate of English (PERMEN No 23, 2006) for each level is communicative competence in the form of spoken of language accompanying action for elementary school, in the form of spoken and written for achieving functional literacy level for junior high school, in the form of spoken and written for achieving information literacy level for senior high school. Continue reading