T

his refers to an article '€œMinistry takes time to train teachers,'€ (The Jakarta Post, Dec. 15, p2)

To implement the 2013 curriculum would not only take time but also cost a fortune. In the implementation of this curriculum the principals should be instructional leaders, principals who focus on academic, curriculum-related affairs.

An instructional leader is a principal who formulates a school'€™s mission, coordinates curriculum and promotes a positive learning environment at school. An instructional leader frequently visits the classroom to supervise how teachers are teaching and if the teachers target the curricular objectives with their materials, teaching objectives and the process of teaching.

An instructional leader is a principal who promotes learning among teachers. Among other things, he or she arranges group discussions for teachers teaching the same subject. He or she is concerned about reward and punishment. He or she is highly visible. He or she cares about the problems the teachers have. He or she provides feedback on the teachers'€™ performance.

Above all, the principal is responsible for the implementation of the curriculum. The principal is the person who is in charge of lesson-plan approval. He or she signs the lesson plans, whether within the problematic 2013 curriculum or the 2006 curriculum.

Unfortunately, in the trainings on the implementation of the much-criticized 2013 curriculum the principal has not been involved! How come? Of course most principals delegate the task to the principal for academic, curriculum-related affairs. The principal in charge of curriculum affairs has not been involved in trainings either. In most cases, the principal just chooses a teacher to be sent to the training randomly.

This is to mention just one of the weaknesses in terms of the controversial curriculum implementation.

Syarwan
Jakarta