182 explored from the curriculum stakeholders’ points of view in curriculum change. Based on the interviews, the perception of the necessity of change split into two groups: those who are for the change and those who are against the change. Those who are for the change agreed that the change is needed in order to improve student English skill, students’ character building, and to focus more on student-centred learning. This section discusses the necessity of change of the new curriculum from the point of views of the curriculum stakeholders based on semi-structred interviews with school principals, teachers and focus group interview of the students.Tatang viewed the necessity of change as a noble intention from the government, He claimed that “Conceptually, it is necessary. Due to the fact that the goal is to equalize the students’ skill and ability in Indonesia so that they can compete with other students from another country in the world. It is a very good and very noble intention.” (Tatang/School principal/interview)
In addition, a student named Dafa added that the change is needed as it made his English skill improving. “Personally, I think the change is necessary. I can see a lot of evidence especially myself. I feel that my English skill is improving a lot after implementing the 2013 Curriculum especially in speaking skill.” (Dafa/Student/focus group)
The reason why the change is necessary to focus more on student-centred learning explained by Adi,
To my knowledge, I see there are a lot of things that are basically good in this 2013 Curriculum. There is a scientific approach to the foundations of project-based learning, problem-solving learning, and problem-solving based. The point is when children are asked to learn it is not solely from
183 the teacher's lecture in order to emphasize on the student-centred learning, that is the soul of the 2013 Curriculum. As the previous curriculum still focuses on teacher-centred learning. That's what I see.
(Adi/Teacher/interview)
Another view of the necessity of change to improve character of the students stated by Edy,
I see that there is public interest in improving the moral character of the students. As we can see that there’s a tendency in our student's behaviour that generally students nowadays have started to ignore the moral values and also ignore the etiquette or norms prevailing in society. Well, to restore things like that, then we need recreate the origin cultural value of our nation. Thus, the aspects or elements that exist in the 2013 Curriculum are very helpful to teachers, especially in shaping and preparing children to return to their own national identity. (Edy/Teacher/interview)
Looking at the arguments of the curriculum stakeholders who support the necessity of curriculum changes, it could be implied that the curriculum change
is not only necessary but also essential to ensure that students are equipped with the knowledge, skills and national identity for the global race in a modern international world. Thus, the Indonesian government has made serious effort to modernize the centralized curriculum through this curriculum change to prepare young generations. As Handoyo (2017) stated that the 2013 Curriculum aims to prepare Indonesians for becoming citizens who are religious, productive, innovative, and passionate as well as who can contribute to nations and worlds civilization.
184 curriculum is better than the 2013 English Curriculum so fully change was not needed. The government should have just revised it instead of replacing it with a new one.
Desy argued,
In my opinion, I don’t think the curriculum is necessary to be replaced. Instead of doing that, it would be better to revise the previous one and improve it. For example, if the curriculum implementation is not effective in one region then the government could do the trick by improving it. So don’t let a new curriculum is changed just because the new government is appointed. If we keep doing this how can we have a good education system? It seems like we are reading a novel, we haven’t finished reading it then we switch to a new one. The problems will never be solved. (Desy/Teacher/interview)
Interestingly, a student named Delia had the same voice. She stated,
I think the previous curriculum just need to be revised not replaced. As there are the advantages and disadvantages from each of them. In the 2013 English Curriculum, we get more active in learning while in the previous one we can have more time so the teacher can explain more as well. If we merge those advantages, we can have a better curriculum.
(Delia/Student/focus group interview)
Moreover, Nina claimed that the previous curriculum that is the School-Based Curriculum is much better than the 2013 English Curriculum. She claimed,
Personally, I think the School-Based Curriculum is very perfect. The first reason, the syllabus is good. It represents the competence that English
185 teachers want to teach to the students. When I compared the School- Based Curriculum syllabus with the 2013 English Curriculum syllabus, it turned out that the learning activities and competence are much better in the School-Based Curriculum. Furthermore, teachers are also free to explore the teaching methods, It’s up to them. Meanwhile, in the 2013 English Curriculum, there are several stages, there are several methods that must be applied. The methods are determined by the government. While in the School-based Curriculum, the teacher has the freedom to apply any teaching methods that they want. (Nina/Teacher/interview)
Schools and educators are suited to slow change. Sometimes they resist to change as they have been in their comfort zone for too long. In this way, resistance to change in schools is normal and, to a degree, necessary. There needs to be a balance between a long-lasting, predictable ethos that transcends generations and the healthy adaptations that acknowledge different needs from one generation to the next (Jorgenson, 2006). In this sense, change can be interpreted two ways: as a risk, insult, or threat to the traditions and autonomy of teachers; and, simultaneously, as an opportunity for reflection and improvement on the status quo (Evans, 2004).