Since 2006, Indonesia has undergone three curriculum changes, namely the School-Based Curriculum (KTSP), the 2013 Curriculum (K-13), and the Merdeka Curriculum (Prototype or Merdeka Belajar Curriculum). In 2025, the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology decided not to introduce another curriculum change.

This decision was based on the flexibility of the existing curriculum and the goal of strengthening students’ competencies. In addition, new subjects such as coding and artificial intelligence (AI) were added. Although the changes may seem minor, each curriculum reform is expected to improve the quality of education and ensure that this improvement is evenly distributed across Indonesia. These changes have sparked many public discussions, resulting in both support and criticism. Some of the key points from these opinions are as follows:

• Adjusting content to students’ characteristics

• Involving communities, parents, and school committees

• Emphasizing character education, creativity, innovation, and active learning

• Providing flexibility in determining learning materials

• Addressing inequality in educational facilities as a challenge

• Many teachers are not yet ready to update their teaching methods

• Overly dense and unfocused learning materials

• Lack of teacher training, dissemination, and mastery of the curriculum

Considering the many pros and cons, has the curriculum change brought a breath of fresh air to education, or has it become a setback? But before going further, what exactly is a curriculum, and why are curriculum changes so important for Indonesian education? What impact do they have?

And most importantly:
What do educators think about these curriculum changes?
What should the government focus on to optimize the current curriculum?

What is a Curriculum?

The word curriculum comes from the Latin currere, which means “a path to be taken.” It was later adopted in education to refer to a set of courses designed to help learners achieve learning goals. Before the concept of curriculum existed, education took place spontaneously and without structure. Teachers or parents taught knowledge and skills they deemed important for daily life without a standardized guide. This unstructured approach was considered ineffective, leading experts to believe that education needed standardization. As civilization and knowledge advanced, such standardization became essential to ensure that learning experiences were structured and equitable.

From this need for standardization, the concept of curriculum emerged. The term curriculum was first used in Scotland in the early 1820s and was later adopted more widely in a modern sense in the United States about a century later. In essence, the curriculum was born from humanity’s need to give direction, standards, and clear goals to the learning process.

The History of Indonesia’s Curriculum

In Indonesia, the concept of a curriculum was first implemented in 1947 through the 1947 Lesson Plan, marking the beginning of the national education system after independence. Since then, Indonesia’s curriculum has continued to evolve in line with changing times, social dynamics, and increasingly complex societal needs.

Each curriculum change reflects the government’s effort to adapt education to both global and local demands. From the 2006 School-Based Curriculum (KTSP), the 2013 Curriculum, to the current Merdeka Curriculum, each reform brought new innovations while introducing new challenges. Each curriculum has its own strengths and weaknesses.

School-Based Curriculum (KTSP) 2006

As an improvement of the Competency-Based Curriculum (KBK), KTSP granted schools greater autonomy to design their own curricula based on local characteristics and students’ needs. The government provided only the basic framework and competency standards, while schools could adjust local content and teaching methods.

• Advantages: encouraged schools and teachers to innovate; relevant to local social and cultural conditions.

• Disadvantages: led to unequal quality among schools due to differences in resources and teachers’ capacity to design independent curricula.

2013 Curriculum (K-13), Revised 2015

The 2013 Curriculum was introduced to address global challenges and students’ lack of critical thinking skills. It emphasized balance between attitude, knowledge, and skills through a scientific approach (observing, questioning, reasoning, experimenting, and communicating). Its main goal was to develop faithful, productive, creative, and innovative individuals. The 2015 revision refined the structure of Core Competencies (KI) and Basic Competencies (KD), clarified spiritual and social assessment, and allowed teachers more flexibility in learning.

• Advantages: fostered positive character and critical thinking; encouraged integration between subjects.

• Disadvantages: complex assessment systems and heavy administrative burdens; many teachers struggled to apply the scientific approach effectively.

Merdeka Curriculum 2022

The Merdeka Curriculum was introduced in response to post-pandemic challenges and to address the weaknesses of K-13, which was seen as too content-heavy. Its main feature is flexibility, allowing teachers to choose teaching methods and materials according to students’ needs while maintaining alignment with national learning goals. It focuses on essential competencies and projects that strengthen the Pancasila Student Profile (P5). Learning is designed to help students think critically, creatively, and collaboratively, rather than merely completing content.

• Advantages: promotes creativity and learning freedom; emphasizes mastery of key concepts rather than content quantity.

• Disadvantages: requires high readiness from teachers and schools; infrastructure and technological gaps hinder implementation in remote areas.

The Impact of Curriculum Changes

The curriculum serves as the main guide for implementing education. However, frequent changes bring both positive and negative effects. On one hand, they allow students to keep up with rapid technological and societal developments. On the other hand, constant changes can create confusion for both teachers and students, who need time to adapt to new systems.

Curriculum implementation largely depends on teachers’ understanding and readiness. Without proper training and dissemination, applying a new curriculum can face major obstacles. Although new curricula aim to address the shortcomings of previous ones and align with the times, insufficient teacher preparation and limited facilities can turn these reforms into burdens rather than improvements.

Reflection: Voices of Educators from Sumba

Considering the ongoing debates around curriculum reform, what do teachers, especially those in remote areas, think about these changes?

From August 4 to 15, 2025, SatuEdu conducted an expedition to Sumba, East Nusa Tenggara, specifically in Praikarang Village, as part of the #EducationForAll program. The goal was to conduct educational research and provide donations for children’s learning facilities in Sumba. The activities included social mapping and focus group discussions involving local teachers and communities about education in Sumba.

From these discussions, six main points emerged:

• Only one teacher stated that the Merdeka Curriculum had a positive impact by encouraging students to learn enthusiastically and enjoy classes, although the lack of basic learning materials such as books remained a major problem.

• Meanwhile, the majority of teachers (over 90 percent) felt that the current Merdeka Curriculum increased the workload for both teachers and students.

  • For teachers, curriculum changes require significant adjustments in teaching methods and understanding. As a result, many are required to attend various training sessions and join online learning communities. However, challenges persist, such as increasing administrative burdens, difficulty adapting to new teaching methods, and limited supporting facilities.

  • For students, the lack of educational resources remains a serious obstacle. The limited availability of printed books makes it difficult to continue learning at school or at home. In many areas, having a personal textbook is considered a luxury. Students must share books during school hours, leaving them without study materials after class. This situation not only disrupts learning continuity but also causes confusion in understanding lessons.

Interestingly, more than 95 percent of teachers believed that the most effective curriculum was KTSP. They argued that it provided more structured and in-depth material, helping both teachers and students understand lessons better, though it still required active participation from both sides.

These insights led SatuEdu to deeply reflect on the realities teachers face in the field. Imagine being a teacher in a remote area who must travel over 10 kilometers daily to reach school, with limited facilities, unstable internet, and little access to devices such as laptops. Despite these challenges, teachers continue to attend online training sessions.

Their struggles are not due to resistance to learning or change, but rather to limited infrastructure and difficulties in adopting technology, which make the process overwhelming. On top of that, rising administrative demands and new systems that are not yet well understood add more pressure. Teachers must continuously adapt, not only in teaching but also in managing the growing complexity of the system.

So, What Now?

Interestingly, each curriculum reform seems to address previous problems but ends up creating new ones. So, what can be done to optimize the current curriculum? Two strategic approaches are considered urgent and important for the government to implement:

1. Continuous Teacher Capacity Building and Mentorship
   Teachers are the key actors in successful curriculum implementation. Therefore, training should not be limited to formal online sessions but must include contextual support. This can involve offline or blended training modules, offline learning communities, and the involvement of guru penggerak (teacher leaders) as key figures in adopting better learning approaches. All these efforts must be supported by adequate infrastructure and financial resources for teachers in every region.

2. Provision of Inclusive Facilities and Infrastructure
   Many difficulties in curriculum adoption stem from inadequate facilities. Therefore, strategic actions should include improving financial and transportation support for teachers, providing sufficient printed learning materials, and ensuring equal internet and network access across regions.

These two measures are crucial for addressing the persistent sustainability issues that have existed since the shift from KTSP to the Merdeka Curriculum, which still lack sufficient government attention.

SatuEdu believes that every system has its weaknesses, but the presence of teachers within that system is what makes it whole.

References

• Jihan, I., Asbari, M., & Nurhafifah, S. (2023). Quo Vadis Pendidikan Indonesia: Kurikulum Berubah, Pendidikan Membaik?. Journal of Information Systems and Management (JISMA), 2(5), 17-22.

• Nasir, M., & Muhammad, M. (2024). ANALISIS PERKEMBANGAN KURIKULUM DI INDONESIA: MASA LALU, KINI, DAN MASA DEPAN. LEARNING Jurnal Inovasi Penelitian Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 4(2), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.51878/learning.v4i2.2846

• Paramita, E., Aminullah, A., Ratnasari, D., & Husna, A. (2025). Transformasi Perkembangan Kurikulum di Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran Indonesia (JPPI), 5(1), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.53299/jppi.v5i1.976

• Rahayu, S. S., Isya, A. M., Nihayatussadiyyah, H., Mustika, M. M., Mujizah, W., & Amirudin, J. F. (2025). Evolusi Kurikulum Pendidikan di Indonesia. Jurnal Intelek Insan Cendikia, 2(1), 1788-1801.

• Setiyorini, S. R., & Setiawan, D. (2023). Perkembangan Kurikulum Terhadap Kualitas Pendidikan di Indonesia. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.47134/jtp.v1i1.27

• Ulum, M. ., & Mun’im, A. (2023). Curriculum Development, Guidance, and Innovation in Schools. Journal of Islamic Education, 1(1), 50–60.

• Zulhuda, R., Yuri, C. O., Aldi, A., & Zora, F. (2024). Telaah Kurikulum Pendidikan di Indonesia: Evaluasi, Implementasi, dan Tantangan di Era Modern. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Scholastic, 8(3), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.36057/jips.v8i3.695