Jakarta (Kompas: 29/09/06) While we are still studying, applying and enjoying the 2004 curriculum, the new 2006 curriculum is introduced 2006. The 2006 curriculum is reportedly similar to the 2004 curriculum.

Is it Democratic?

2006 curriculum gives an opportunity for teachers to be creative because the government only provides a standard reference (content and competency). It also gives more freedom for teachers to develop their own curriculum. These statements seem to be very positive, and sound relieving because it seems democratic and humanist. Is it true? This seems confusing. The confusion does not lie on the creativity or the freedom, but it lies on its implementation. Is it possible for teachers to be creative, to develop the curriculum and to implement it in teaching-learning process adapted to the condition and the needs of the students (including competency achievement indicator) as well as education unit environment if eventually it was hampered by the national examination?

Curriculum Development requires big attention to the teaching-learning process; while the national examination is focused on the result. The big question is whether teachers are skilful enough to combine those two approaches?

History

The problems occur when teachers’ creativity is tried by the national examination which becomes the sole factor that determines students’ graduation. In a more specific scope, the 2006 requires the history lesson in the entire high school departments, Natural Sciences (IPA), Social Sciences (IPS) or Languages (Bahasa). It seems clear but unrealistic.

Let’s see. Is it realistic for a school to get a history teacher (to be recruited in such a short time)? Moreover the requirement for the history lesson could only be known after the new academic year of 2006-2007. Even though the teacher is available, What kind of history teacher do we need? Are they competent? The question is elucidated by the fact that there is no such a big interest among the public to become a history teacher.

We should admit that history lesson supports character building. However, it is taught by a skilful teacher who invites students to reflect. Therefore, the history lesson will not end in memorizing historical facts, like what have been going on and make students bored.
The problem is, whether history teachers are skillful enough to bring students to reflect the historical events? This is questionable and doubted.

Meanwhile, we could be sure that the history lesson in the entire high school department swill be useless. Moreover, is there is any "hidden mission" (from certain ministry for certain political interest). If it’s the case, we can be sure that the objective of the history lesson will never be achieved.