Non-Civil Service Teachers and the State's Fragmented Burden of Responsibility
The Bantargebang tragedy stands as evidence of systemic failure.
In many schools, particularly on the outskirts of cities and in villages, non-civil service teachers arrive earliest and leave latest. They teach, guide, calm anxious pupils, and compile reports equally complex as those produced by civil service teachers. Yet outside the classroom, their lives often unfold in uncertainty. Wages do not always arrive in full, their status remains suspended, and their futures are frequently deferred with one familiar word: patience.
This uncertainty is not merely an individual problem or a failure of work ethic. It is a symptom of a fragmented state burden of responsibility: between centre and regions, between the education system and the civil service framework, between policy intentions and structural limitations. At this juncture, the welfare of non-civil service teachers becomes a mirror of how the state manages its own responsibilities.
Ironically, we demand these teachers educate a generation that is resilient, critical, and self-confident. Yet their own lives are conducted under conditions of fragility and temporality. The issue of non-civil service teacher welfare, therefore, is no longer merely about numbers but touches upon the dignity of the teaching profession.
Various educational studies and reports from teacher professional organisations have identified non-civil service teacher welfare as one source of structural exhaustion in the education sector. Data from several national surveys and demonstrations by contract teachers in recent years show repeated demands: job security, adequate wages, and workplace protection. This fact confirms that non-civil service teacher anxiety is not a personal impression but a long-standing collective problem.
It must be said honestly that the central government, particularly the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, has not remained idle. In recent years, various affirmative policies have been implemented. The government has converted more than 900,000 contract teachers to civil service status through the PPPK scheme over the past five years. Access to Teacher Professional Education has also been expanded, with more than 750,000 non-civil service teachers participating in pre-service teacher education (PPG) in 2024-2025.
From a welfare perspective, non-civil service teacher incentives have been raised from Rp300,000 to Rp400,000 per month by 2026 with a budget of approximately Rp1.8 trillion. Additionally, Professional Teaching Allowances for certified non-civil service teachers now reach Rp2 million per month with a total budget of approximately Rp11.5 trillion. Special allowances for teachers in remote, outermost, and economically backward (3T) regions have also been increased. These figures demonstrate genuine commitment and deserve appreciation—not merely administrative achievements, but recognition that the state is beginning to view non-civil service teacher issues as serious matters.
However, it is here that the paradox emerges. Despite various programmes being implemented, the fundamental issue of non-civil service teacher welfare continues to recur. Not because policies are absent, but because such policies operate within an architecture of fragmented authority. When traced structurally from the outset, the issue of contract teachers has not been entirely within the Ministry of Education’s purview. Schools and regional governments hold significant authority, whilst the central government has only limited space to set standards and provide incentives. When standards are formulated at the national level, regional capacity and commitment frequently do not align. At this point, well-intentioned policies often lose their transformative power in the field.
This problem becomes more complex when it intersects with the national civil service system. The Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform (PAN-RB) operates according to the logic of staffing formations, quotas, and bureaucratic efficiency. This logic is important for administrative order but is often inflexible when confronting an ever-changing educational reality. Schools require teachers today, whilst the civil service system moves at the pace of layered selection processes and formation limitations. Contract teachers thus become a permanent emergency solution: needed yet not fully recognised.
Furthermore, regional governments play a significant role. Regional autonomy grants broad authority in education management, including the appointment and welfare of non-civil service teachers. Yet in many regions, education remains overshadowed by short-term political priorities. Contract teachers are retained as a cheap expedient without a clear roadmap. When fiscal capacity is limited or political commitment weakens, they are the first asked to understand the circumstances.
It is at this juncture that the thinking of Ki Hadjar Dewantara becomes relevant once again. In his various writings on education and culture, Ki Hadjar affirmed that education is an endeavour to liberate humanity. Teachers are not merely instructors but guides—leaders of life. It is difficult to imagine liberating education if its guides live in structural uncertainty. When teachers are treated as temporary workforce, what moral message is the state truly conveying to the next generation?
Ibn Khaldun, long before, cautioned that the sustainability of civilisation depends upon how the state treats the professions that sustain it. In the Muqaddimah, he wrote that injustice allowed to persist unchecked will corrode the state’s foundations from within. Nations do not collapse because of a single flawed policy but because of social exhaustion that is ignored. When the guardians of knowledge and learning are marginalised in policy-making, decline arrives gradually, almost imperceptibly.
Therefore, the issue of non-civil service teachers is not in fact the failure of a single ministry, let alone a single minister. It is a mirror of a state whose authority is fragmented. The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education has strived to the extent permitted by law and structure. Yet this problem still requires courageous cross-ministerial coordination to align the national civil service system and strengthen regional government commitment. Without this, all efforts will continue to collide against the same barriers.
At this point, criticism must be directed honestly and proportionally. The Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform needs to reconsider civil service design that is too rigid for the education sector.