Teachers, Burdens, and Calling
In recent times, emotional exhaustion (burnout) and decisions to quit teaching are no longer mere rumours among teachers, an irony amidst the consensus of experts such as Fullan (2007) and Villegas-Reimers (2003) who assert that teachers are the primary determinants of education quality. In Indonesia, the pressure is multi-layered: complex curriculum administration, the completion of the E-Kinerja platform, and ever-changing target demands are draining teachers’ creative energy, aligning with findings by Yildermoglu and Topcu (2025) and Aguilar (2018) regarding the lack of social recognition and compensation experienced by teachers globally.
As a result, teachers, who should be agents of innovation, are instead trapped in a whirlpool of bureaucratic routines that erode morale. Therefore, teacher resilience or mental fortitude cannot be placed solely on individual capability; it is a product of a working ecosystem that must be built collectively by headteachers, policymakers, and society. If we continue to allow teachers to struggle alone amidst an increasingly heavy bureaucracy, the ambition for educational reform will remain nothing more than a slogan.
NOT MERELY ABOUT BOUNCING BACK
Understanding teacher resilience requires a paradigm shift. In general conversation, resilience is often simplified as an individual’s ability to ‘bounce back’ from adversity (Smith et al, 2008). However, resilience is not a static, innate personality trait. Mansfield, Beltman, Price, and McConney (2012) emphasise that resilience is a dynamic and adaptive process; it is the result of complex interactions between risk factors and protective factors originating from the individual, family, and community environment (Norman, 2000). In other words, resilient teachers are not born of sheer will, but are shaped by context.
The socio-ecological approach proposed by Ungar (20ability) offers a fairer framework. This approach shifts the focus from merely having a ‘strong personality’ to the interaction between the individual and their environment. There are three layers to consider. First, the environment-centred approach emphasises the importance of contextual support, including the trust of school leadership and positive feedback from parents (Brunetti, 2006; Day et et al, 2007). Second, the individual-environment interaction model reminds us that while teachers are professionally responsible moral agents, they require healthy collaborative relationships in the workplace (Gu, 2014). Third, resilience must be understood as a capacity that is nurtured, learned, and acquired through continuous learning, rather than something instantaneous.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A RESILIENT TEACHER
What, then, are the characteristics of a resilient teacher? First, resilience is context-specific. A teacher in an urban area with adequate facilities certainly faces different challenges than a teacher in 3T regions (frontier, outermost, and least developed). School management support, such as opportunities for self-development and a supportive working climate, has been proven to exert a strong influence on teacher motivation (Bruness, 2006; Leithwood et al, 2006).
Second, teacher resilience is role-specific. It is not merely about ‘surviving’, but also about maintaining professional commitment and a sense of calling amidst the storm. As stated by Wosnitza, Peixoto, Beltman, and Mansfield (2018), resilient teachers do not just endure difficult times, but are also able to achieve meaningful goals for themselves and their profession.
Third, resilience is closely linked to teacher ‘agency’—the ability of educators to make decisions, innovate, and adapt teaching methods to meet student needs (Davis, 2024; Jatuporn, 2025). This agency is what prevents teachers from becoming mere robots executing a curriculum, allowing them instead to be architects of learning.
BUILDING A RESILIENT ECOSYSTEM
Sukma Bangsa School (SSB) in Aceh serves as concrete evidence that teacher resilience can be built through a supportive ecosystem. Established amidst the devastation of the post-tsunami and conflict era, SSB upholds the principle of ‘teacher supremacy’—the belief that teacher capacity is paramount. This commitment is reflected in budget management: 70% of BOS funds are managed directly by teachers for self-capacity development and student character building, with the remainder allocated to management and infrastructure.
SSB does not leave teachers to struggle alone. The working environment, built through continuous training, a culture of writing, and research, serves as a protective factor that strengthens their mental resilience (Mansfield, Beltman, Price, & McConney, 2012). Teachers are treated as subjects rather than mere implementers of the curriculum; the motto ‘A School that Learns’ emphasises that learning is a lifelong process for all school members. Consequently, the first generation of SSB graduates is now spread across seven corners of the world as leaders and educators, proving that providing space and trust to teachers produces resilient and characterised generations.
From the experience of SSB, there are three fundamental lessons for building a resilient ecosystem. First, headteachers must transform from administrators into coaches and facilitators who build trust; teachers are partners, not subordinates. Second, the government needs to re-evaluate the administrative burden that drains teachers’ creative energy; when teachers are given significant authority, their sense of responsibility grows. Third, professional development for teachers must be embedded within the socio-cultural context of the school, rather than being merely an annual bureaucratic project. Resilience is not a product of top-down instruction, but the fruit of an ecosystem that respects teacher agency and dignity.
Teaching is a noble profession imbued with spiritual values. In Indonesia, many teachers view their profession as a form of worship and devotion. This belief serves as an extraordinary source of inner strength (Gu, 2018).