C

ulture and Elementary and Secondary Education Minister Anies Baswedan has, in the end, put on hold the highly controversial 2013 curriculum on the grounds that it was created without an in-depth study of its urgency, conception and substance.

The curriculum was rushed through by his predecessor, then education and culture minister Mohammad Nuh, in his final year in office, and has been tried out as a pilot project in 6,221 schools across the archipelago since 2013.

Nuh claimed that the drafting of the curriculum began in 2010, but it was not made public until 2012 before being tested on the 6,000-plus elementary, junior and high schools that had adequate resources.

The canceled curriculum was meant to replace the 2006 curriculum, but apparently the ministry had yet to conduct the research necessary to convince the public that the seven-year-old curriculum needed refinement.

The lack of public consultation and the hasty drafting process have resulted in a short-lived curriculum. Had Nuh done it properly, it could have been his legacy, as might well have been his intention.

The ill-prepared curriculum has caused confusion in its implementation. The training period was nothing but too short; many teachers were left untrained; the books were hastily written and logistical supplies to the regions were a nightmare.

Anies'€™ bold move has won public support although it has, unavoidably, caused problems in the pilot-project schools. It has also angered the contractors with book-printing contracts worth some Rp 5 trillion. And the government is yet to decide what to do with the millions of books already printed.

But in view of the long-term educational development intended to produce a '€œgolden generation'€ by 2045, all the sacrifice is worth it. The government'€™s curriculum-revision team should have a free hand and enough time to perfect it through research, ample public consultation and intensive tryouts.

The government has required that schools that have used the 2013 curriculum for less than three semesters go back to the 2006 curriculum, and those who have used it longer than three months continue with it before a final decision is made.

Already, the enforcement of two curricula is provoking fresh debate on whether the government will go ahead with national exams next year.

The 2013 curriculum needs overhauling. As the Indonesian Teachers Union (PGRI) points out, the curriculum has fundamental flaws that the government has to rework to make it implementable in schools.

PGRI chairman Sulistyo said the mind-frame with which the curriculum was created was '€œdifficult to comprehend'€. The recommended teaching methods were impracticable, teachers'€™ training programs ineffective and the prescribed appraisal system highly burdensome to teachers.

The lack of competence on the part of the teachers, coupled with the late delivery of the badly needed books in many schools, especially those in far-flung regions, have made it impossible to implement the hastily-devised curriculum.

The curriculum is still in the early stages of implementation in pilot projects and it needs more time for an objective review.

Among the most criticized content is the fusion of closely related subjects, which may result in teachers losing their jobs, over-emphasis on morality, religious lessons that do not support plurality and longer school hours feared to deny students a social life.

Critics say the curriculum prescribes too many subjects, forcing the students to spend four hours longer at school per week. Besides, the substance lacks character building qualities '€” something commonly blamed for notorious youth delinquency, such as student brawls.

For its advocates, the 2013 curriculum is suitable for the long term as part of efforts to create the so-called golden generation by 2045, because it trains students to become creative, critical and analytical. The problem is that it was enforced too soon and prepared poorly.

For the laypeople, the latest curriculum debacle is testament to the old, tired adage that a new education minister means a new curriculum. Indonesia is forever struggling to build a solid foundation for its education system.

The education system is designed according to the political interests of the ruling regime. During the 32 years of the authoritarian rule of Soeharto, for example, the state ideology Pancasila was a requisite subject. In the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono era, when religious conservatism thrived, lessons of religious morality took over from Pancasila, which Soeharto abused to keep his political grip strong.

While our education is lagging behind other more prosperous Asian countries, Indonesia remains busy refining its curriculum. Parents complain they have to spend a lot of money buying their children textbooks treated as hot commodity. In the cities, parents have to spend a lot more money for their children to take extra or private lessons.

It is high time the Jokowi administration initiates a curriculum that can last beyond his term in office. Perhaps the best thing Anies can do is to combine the best elements of the past curricula with the one he is envisioning.