Hardiknas 2026 and the Fate of Teachers
Even the renaming of the holiday is a political stance: education is not the privilege of the elite, but belongs to all. Therefore, Hardiknas should ideally serve as a reminder that education in Indonesia was born from criticism of inequality—which, ironically, has not been fully resolved.
Ki Hajar bequeathed three mottos: Ing Ngarso Sung Tulodo, Ing Madyo Mangun Karso, and Tut Wuri Handayani. The idea of “education that liberates” should position teachers as free subjects who can create and are protected.
Even in Hardiknas 2026, that irony feels like a fact. Many honorary teachers attend ceremonies with the same anxiety: will honorary teachers still be teaching next year, or will they be sidelined by schemes that offer no certainty? Here lies the problem—the system has yet to provide a sense of security to teachers who are tasked with building the nation’s future.
Idealism on the Walls, Reality in the Field
The government is indeed taking action. The 2026 budget for the welfare of non-ASN teachers increases by more than Rp14 trillion, incentives for honorary teachers rise from Rp300,000 to Rp400,000, and the target for PPPK recruitment continues to be pushed.
But in the field, reality has not changed: allowances are delayed, administration is convoluted, and even part-time PPPK salaries have not been paid for months. This means that progress at the policy level has not fully penetrated implementation issues.
This contrast is evident when looking at school conditions. The target to revitalise tens of thousands of schools, including in Papua and NTB, shows that the state is present. However, the scale of the problems is far larger.
In many 3T regions, the issues are not just damaged buildings, but inadequate basic facilities, limited access, and weak regional capacity to absorb budgets. So the question is no longer whether the state is present, but whether its presence is strong and equitable enough.
On the welfare side, the narrative is similar. The Rp400,000 monthly incentive—about Rp13,000 per day—can hardly be called decent. Many honorary teachers still survive on a combination of small incentives and uncertain school honours.
In big cities, that amount is almost meaningless; in remote areas, the challenges are even greater. The problem is the unclear and unestablished standards of decency.
Good Regulations, Implementation Still Stumbling
Old problems also remain unresolved. Professional allowances are often delayed, especially in regions with weak finances, even though Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers guarantees decent income. In the end, teachers’ welfare still depends on regional capabilities—not as a right consistently guaranteed by the state.
The appointment of honorary teachers as PPPK is indeed a step forward. The target of 237,000 in 2026 shows recognition of long-standing issues. But the design is not yet complete. Many positions are part-time, without long-term certainty. For teachers who have served for a long time, it feels like a half-hearted solution: status changes, but security remains absent. In many regions, quotas are not commensurate with the number of honorary teachers, creating long queues without certainty.
At this point, it is clear that education issues require consistency in addressing root problems. Article 31 Paragraph 4 of the 1945 Constitution guarantees 20% of the APBN for education—and that is fulfilled. However, the problem lies in distribution. Large budgets do not automatically mean large impacts. Much funding is absorbed in bureaucracy or stalled in regions that need it most.
Education that Liberates
The year 2026 does bring clearer directions for reform: digitalisation, improving teacher quality, regulatory revisions, and pushes for equity. But all of that still feels partial. The status of honorary teachers is unresolved, allowance disparities are wide, and teacher distribution is uneven. Without intensive placement incentives, cities will continue to have surplus teachers, while 3T regions remain short-staffed.
What is often overlooked is the position of teachers themselves. Teachers are still treated as objects of policy, not subjects with professional autonomy. Yet, without space for freedom and decent protection, “independent learning” will remain just a slogan. If teachers are burdened with administration, live in uncertainty, and survive on minimal income, then it is not the teachers who fail—but the system design.
In conclusion, Hardiknas should truly be a moment for honest evaluation. Have we truly cared for the teachers who carry out Ki Hajar’s legacy? The fact is, many teachers still work in uncertainty: income is not yet decent, status is unclear, and appreciation is minimal.
Policy directions are indeed starting to move, but not enough. The problem is consistency and the courage to close the gap between promises and reality. As long as reforms stop at numbers and targets, teachers in the field will continue to bear the burden.
Ki Hajar’s legacy is not in ceremonies, but in the most real things: decent classrooms, teachers whose lives are secure, and students who can truly think freely.