Educational Decentralization and Curriculum Implementation Consistency: A Managerial Perspective from Indonesia
Main Article Content
Maharani Lintang Corneasari*
Indonesia has implemented an educational decentralization policy for over two decades, aiming to enhance educational quality through greater autonomy at the regional and school levels. However, the consistent implementation of the national curriculum across diverse regions remains a major challenge. This study explores the managerial dynamics behind curriculum implementation in the context of decentralization, focusing on how school leaders and local education authorities navigate shifting national policies and localized capacities. Using a qualitative case study approach, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with school principals, curriculum coordinators, and education officials across multiple provinces. The findings reveal that inconsistencies in curriculum implementation are largely influenced by disparities in managerial competencies, access to training, and support systems at the local level. While decentralization provides flexibility, it often leads to uneven interpretations and applications of curriculum guidelines. Moreover, frequent curriculum reforms at the national level create additional pressures on school management, particularly in schools located in rural or under-resourced areas. This study highlights the need for a more robust managerial support system within the decentralized framework. Strengthening leadership training, improving coordination between central and local authorities, and providing clearer implementation guidelines are critical to achieving curriculum consistency. The findings offer practical insights for policymakers and educational leaders in Indonesia and other developing countries grappling with similar decentralization challenges. A balanced approach to autonomy and standardization is essential to ensure that educational equity and quality are upheld across the nation.
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. Harper.
Bray, T. M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
Fiske, E. B. (1996). Decentralization of education: Politics and consensus (Vol. 36). World Bank Publications.
Hargreaves, A. (2001). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1056–1080.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Scott, Foresman.
Pritchett, L., & Beatty, A. (2012). The negative consequences of overambitious curricula in developing countries. Center for Global Development Working Paper, 293.
Rasheed, Z. (2023). Educational innovation amidst globalization: Higher education institutions and societal integration. Igmin Research, 1(2), 154–159.
Robinson, S. (2012). School and system leadership. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Suryana, A. (2019). An Analysis of English Teachers’ability in Designing Lesson Plan Based on 2013 Curriculum at SMK Muhammadiyah 3 Pekanbaru. Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau.