Question: What was the common denominator that connected all of Nadiem’s new policies? Were they made specifically to mitigate pandemic-related learning loss?

Answer: Our focus, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, was to improve the learning quality for students, since we are facing a learning crisis, in which students are not learning even when they are in school. It’s true that [the pandemic-induced] problem of learning loss has made the situation worse, but this learning crisis has been around for decades.

That’s why all our main programs are focused on addressing this issue. And to understand this better, we have come up with the National Assessment, or AN, which is our way to ensure that everybody in the education sector prioritizes character building and basic competencies, such as literacy and numeracy [in schools].

Since its implementation, there have been two rounds of the National Assessment, in 2021 and 2022. What did it reveal about the state of our education system and how are education authorities planning to use the results to improve it?

The results of the two ANs confirmed what we have suspected all along, that students are in school but they are not really learning. Some students are still struggling to even understand the meaning [of an excerpt] that they are reading. But, what’s different from the AN [compared to its predecessor, the UN] is that we can accurately measure the quality of education in each school. There were around 300,000 schools that participated in last year’s AN, and we have conveyed the results back to each school in the form of a “report card” for them to reflect on and use to help figure out their priorities for improvement.

Granted, we are not yet happy [with the results of last year’s AN]. But there is some good news, since we have seen improvements in literacy and numeracy. We will reveal the exact results at a later date.

[For the central government], the AN allows us to monitor the yearly progress of each [participating] school. We are aware that there is a learning disparity within the Indonesian education system, and the AN, for the first time ever, allows us to accurately quantify it.

Aside from the National Assessment, one of Nadiem’s other trademark policies is the Merdeka Curriculum. How has the response been from educators?

Although some narratives in social media have suggested that there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Merdeka Curriculum, in the schools themselves the response has been great. We visited many schools throughout the country [and they said] the new curriculum allowed them to adjust their learning materials to their specific needs and conditions.

This type of arrangement is hugely beneficial to schools in less developed regions. For instance, some elementary schools in these areas often have students that cannot speak the Indonesian language, let alone read or write in it, since they speak in their native tongues at home. Under [the previous] 2013 curriculum, teachers were forced to immediately begin teaching science and social studies in the first week of school. But, under the Merdeka Curriculum, they can afford to spend the first one or two months of the school year to strengthen their students’ literacy skills.

Some critics say that the disparity in teacher quality throughout the country would be a big hindrance if the new curriculum were to be mandatory nationwide. Does the education ministry share this concern?

Indonesia does have a problem of disparity when it comes to teachers. But we think that the solution is to provide a national policy that equips these teachers with materials that allow them to adjust [their teachings] based on their own conditions.

Frankly speaking, narratives suggesting that the Merdeka Curriculum is only applicable in good schools and in big cities are an insult to our teachers in less developed areas. We found that it is these teachers that are more motivated to continually better themselves, so long as they are given the chance to do so. We must move away from the idea that providing a uniformed solution is the remedy to disparity. In fact, it’s this type of thinking that stifles a teacher’s autonomy and their willingness to learn.

One of the biggest changes in the education sector worldwide of late has been the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI). Does it have a place in the Indonesian education system?

New AI technology has indeed been very disruptive. But, if we cast our minds back to 10 or 20 years ago, we also had the same problem with the emergence [of search engines] like Google and Yahoo [and websites] like Wikipedia. Just as it was then, [banning AI] would be the wrong approach since technological development is inevitable. It’s our responsibility as educators to ensure that our students can harness technology effectively and responsibly.

When it comes to mastering AI, the most important thing is the ability to formulate problems and questions through prompts.

Indonesia will be left far behind if we don’t change our education system because throughout a student’s school life, they are only tasked with making these prompts while working on their theses at university. That’s far too late, which is why the Merdeka Curriculum has a bigger emphasis on project and problem-based learning from a younger age.