487 • let. 61, 2/2024 487 • let. 61, 2/2024 Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN* A SOCIAL CAPITAL STUDY: RURAL TEACHERS’ VOICES CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INDONESIAN CURRICULA** Abstract. Employing social capital theory as its framework, this study aims to investigate teachers’ understanding, perspectives, and level of implementation of curricula among teachers in Indonesia to identify em- bryonic inequalities and disadvantaged groups resulting from such policy practices. Through semi-structured interviews conducted in group settings, ten teachers’ voices were analysed using thematic analysis. The findings highlight the significant impact of low social capital among rural teach- ers on their grasp, perspectives, and implementation of curricula, in turn affecting student performance. Further, the study points to rural teachers and their students as vulnerable demographics affected by policy imple- mentations, underscoring the imperative for policy reform. Keywords: Curricula, Social Capital, Inequality, Rural Indonesian Teach- ers, policy practice. INTRODUCTION In the past two decades, Indonesia has undergone considerable changes in its educational curricula. The KTSP [Education Unit Level Curriculum] in place since 2006 was replaced by K-13 [2013 Curriculum] (Sugiyono et al. 2014). Sub- sequently, in 2022 the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Techno- logy (MoECRT) introduced another curriculum, the Emancipated Curriculum (IKM) (MoECRT 2022a). Each transition in the curriculum framework has invariably engendered debate and elicited “confusion, misunderstanding, and misconception” among educators (Ekawati 2013; Rofalina 2013; Akuntono 2014; * Fikri Yansyah, S.Pd. MA, Lecturer, Education Specialist & Policy Reader, STiR Education, Sura- baya, Indonesia, e-mail: fyansyah@stireducation.org; Dini Aulia Dwintan, S.Pd.Gr (Cand.), In- structor, Curriculum Development Specialist, Yayasan TEACH Indonesia, Palembang, Indonesia. ** Review Article. DOI: 10.51936/tip.61.2.487 488 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 488 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Krissandi and Rusmawan 2015). This phenomenon is especially salient in the case of the most recent IKM. The purpose of IKM is to improve students’ literacy and numeracy skills, addressing the decline exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, serving as a recovery curriculum (MoECRT 2022a). During the transition period, the MoECRT has granted schools autonomy to decide whether to implement the new curriculum or retain K13 based on the needs and circumstances of their students (MoECRT 2022b). However, the existence of multiple curricula in Indonesia may have intensified confusion, particularly among teachers (Firmansyah 2022). It is important to note that the use of the term “curricula” rather than “curriculum” throughout this study is thus intentional, acknowledging the concurrent imple- mentation of distinct curricular frameworks – K13 and IKM – within the coun- try. Moreover, some schools still adhere to KTSP, which predates the adoption of K13. Given the pervasive narrative surrounding the complexities associated with implementing multiple curricula in the country, this study aims to comprehend the perceptions of teachers navigating the implications of this policy. It focuses on educators in rural Indonesia, acknowledging the potentially heightened com- plexity in their teaching environments, particularly due to the limited access to information. The study intends to investigate teachers’ viewpoints regarding the curricula implementation at the grassroots level, employing social capital theory as its analytical framework. Further, the study is all the more critical given that by the end of 2024 all schools in Indonesia should adopt IKM (Wulandari 2023; Dian 2023). This is in line with the Act Number 20 Year 2003 on the National Education System, which mandates the standardised design of curriculum, books and materials on the national level (MoEC 2003). Indonesian scholars such as Mukminin, Habibi, Prasojo, Idi and Hamidah expressed criticism of this policy in their 2019 article, suggesting that this system might not consider certain groups, notably those liv- ing in rural, distant and low-income areas, who may face difficulties adjusting to their context due to limited access and other embedded factors such as social capital. This adds to the relevance of using the social capital framework for this study. Social capital theory defined by Bordieu and Wacquant (1992) refers to the capacity of certain people or organisations to have the potential to exert a sig- nificant impact on their society. This capacity is essential for facilitating the exchange of knowledge and information (Kankanhalli et al. 2005). In recent dec- ades, social capital theory has garnered increasing attention from scholars glob- ally owing to the implications it holds for policy formulation (Savioli and Patuelli 2016; Allan, Ozga and Smyth 2009; Gamarnokow and Green 2009; Field 2003; Schuller 2000; Adlen and Kwon 2002). Importantly, this theory helps investig- ate inequalities that appear when ‘social capital’ is unevenly distributed among communities (Gamarnokow and Green 2009; Field 2003; Stanton-Salazar and 489 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 489 • let. 61, 2/2024 Dornbusch 1995). While this theory has gained significant traction in Western contexts, its exploration remains limited in Indonesia, raising questions about the extent to which the government integrates this theory into policy formula- tion processes. Using the lens of social capital theory, this study aims to investigate the embryonic inequalities arising from curricula implementation in Indonesia. The discussion will pivot around teachers’ social capital as a foundational standpoint to comprehend their perspectives and grasp of the curricula. The objectives of this study are accordingly: 1) to explore the social capital of rural Indonesian teachers and its implications for their understanding, perspectives and engage- ment with the curricula in Indonesia; 2) to examine how social capital might contribute to their teaching practices and students’ performance; and 3) to dis- cuss how the accrued social capital may prepare teachers for implementing IKM as the sole curriculum by the end of 2024. THE DOMAINS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL The study adopts social capital theory as its foundational framework to explain its relationship to curricula implementation in Indonesia. Previous studies explored its theoretical underpinnings and practical implications across various domains, including crime, economics, health and education (Fine 2010; Ali-Hassan 2009; Durlauf and Fafchamps 2005; Field 2003; see also Claridge 2004). Lang and Hornburg (1998) assert that policymakers should consider social capital as it can foster “the connectedness” needed for navigating evolving soci- etal landscapes. However, the challenge to elucidate the nuanced interplay of the concept of social capital theory and its practical application is widely acknow- ledged (Claridge 2004; Field 2003). While researchers in the Western context have considered social capital theory for educational policy implementation, its impact on education performance (Aslam et al. 2013; Field 2003; Dika and Singh 2002) research in Indonesia, as well as the consideration of social capital in educational policymaking, remains underexplored. In response to this situation, the study explored whether teachers’ social capital influences their understand- ing and perspectives regarding the implementation of the new curriculum in Indonesia. To date, sociologists have defined social capital as the resources held by individuals or groups with significant societal influence (Bourdieu 1986; Cole- man 1988; Putnam 1995). Coleman (1988) outlines three domains: obligations, information channels, and societal norms. Putnam (1995) emphasises norms, networking, and mutual benefits, while Coburn and Russel (2008) broaden the concept to include networks, resources, interactions and trust. These domains of social capital play a crucial role in facilitating knowledge and information exchange within communities (Kankahali et al. 2005). For the purpose of this study, the domains of social capital explored included networks, resources and access, excluding trust due to its challenging measurability (see OECD 2017; 490 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 490 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Glaeser et al. 2000). Networks refer to the opportunities available for teachers to engage with communities and groups that share similar goals, values and per- spectives (Russell and Coburn 2008; Gamarnokow and Green 2009; Iglič 2022). Resources encompass teachers’ connections with institutionalised individuals or government groups (Coburn and Russel 2008; Adler and Kwon 2002; Putnam 1995). Access relates to teachers’ ability to participate at conferences, workshops, seminars, coaching and expert sessions (Coburn and Russell 2008). Informed by the three domains of social capital and supported by research from Yansyah (2020), Gamarnokow and Green (2009), and Leonardi (1995) which underscores the role of social capital in shaping individuals’ norms and attitudes, Figure 1 below depicts social capital circuits. These circuits serve as a guiding framework for this study, exploring how social capital may impact teachers’ comprehension of curriculum and, consequently, influence student performance. Figure 1: CIRCUITS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL Source: Adapted and Developed from Yansyah (2020), Gamarnokow and Green (2009) and Leonardi (1995). 491 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 491 • let. 61, 2/2024 To sum up, by applying social capital theory in this study we aim to under- stand how Indonesian teachers perceive and utilise their curricula in connection with their networks, resources and access. This exploration sheds light on poten- tial implications for instructional strategies, student academic performance, and the readiness of rural Indonesian teachers to embrace the IKM curriculum by 2024, informed by their social capital. This study hypothesised that the social capital of teachers, comprising networks, access and resources, influences diverse perspectives on curricula in Indonesia. MEASURING SOCIAL CAPITAL Scholars employ various quantitative metrics to measure different aspects of social capital. Putnam, for instance, emphasises the density of networks or the number of connections per 1,000 inhabitants, which serve as indicators of high social capital (Putnam 2000; also see Brauer 2010). Yet, it is worth noting that social capital is multifaceted, and meeting all of its dimensions can be a demand- ing requirement (Coleman 1988). Drawing from the Putnam Social Capital Index (2000), the quantitative criteria for the three social capital domains in the study networks, resources, and access to information – are as follows: 1. For network evaluation, five prominent teachers’ organisations in Indonesia – Persatuan Guru Republik Indonesia (PGRI), Ikatan Guru Indonesia (IGI), Persatuan Guru Seluruh Indonesia (PGSI), Federasi Serikat Guru Indonesia (FSGI), and Persatuan Guru Nahdlatul Ulama (Pergunu) – are considered, along with the formation of clustered groups comprising teachers from 4–5 neighbouring schools (Astuti 2022). 2. Regarding resources, the connectivity within a community, as highlighted by Iglič (2022), factors in consideration include size and homogeneity. Given Putnam’s suggestion of a minimum of 1,000 interconnected inhabitants in a community, and considering that government staff in an education agency typically number around 50, it is reasonable to expect each teacher to connect with at least 10% of these personnel, equating to at least 5 individuals. 3. Access to professional development opportunities is another vital aspect. As per the Ministry of Education, Culture and Research and Technology’s recommendation (MoECRT 2023), a teacher is encouraged to participate in professional development training programmes at least five times, including workshops, conferences, coaching sessions and seminars. 492 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 492 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Table 1: EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL CAPITAL MEASUREMENT (ESCM) Level Criteria High Social Capital Fulfil all aspects of social capital (network, resources, access) with the following criteria: – be involved in at least 3 teachers’ organisations – be connected to at least 3 government personnel in an education agency – have participated in at least 3 workshops, conferences, coaching sessions, and seminars related to curriculum and other expertise Medium Social Capital Fulfil all aspects of social capital (network, resources, access) with the following criteria: – be involved in at least more than 2 and less than 5 teachers’ organisations – be connected to at least 2 government personnel in an education agency – have participated in at least 2 workshops, conferences, coaching sessions, and seminars related to curriculum and other expertise Low Social Capital Fulfil at least two aspects of social capital (network, resources, access) with the following criteria: – be involved in at least 1 teachers’ organisation OR connected to at least 1 government personnel in an education agency OR participated in at least 1 workshop, conference, coaching session, or seminar related to curriculum and other expertise Extremely Low Social Capital Fulfil at least one aspect of social capital (network, resources, access) with the following criteria: – be involved in 1 teachers’ organisation OR connected to at least 1 government personnel in an education agency OR followed at least 1 workshop, conference, coaching session, or seminar related to curriculum and other expertise No Social Capital Has fulfilled no aspect Source: Developed by Authors. A previous study examined Indonesian English teachers’ perceptions of the English Education Policy (EEP) in Indonesia using a social capital approach (Yansyah 2020). The research revealed that the EEP overlooks the diversity of teachers’ social capital and the support available to them. The policy thus has the potential to disadvantage certain groups of students, particularly those attend- ing public schools or residing in rural areas, as the government neglects to con- sider the social capital of teachers from these demographics. While our study shares similarities with Yansyah’s research in analysing policy through a social capital lens, there are differences in research design: Yansyah’s study employed one-to-one online interviews, whereas this study utilised direct interviews in a group setting. Nevertheless, Yansyah’s study offers valuable insights into social capital studies in Indonesia across various contexts, which remain relevant for comparison. 493 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 493 • let. 61, 2/2024 Curriculum Policy in Indonesia Since attaining its independence, Indonesia has generated 10 different cur- ricula (Abidin et al. 2023; Jannah 2023; Mukminin et al. 2019). The changing curriculum seems to be a milestone of every ruling period in Indonesia. Each era of a new government will produce a new curriculum to legitimate its influence and mark its tenure. Yet, debates and controversies arise each time the govern- ment launches a new curriculum due to the lack of clarity of its conceptions, design and implementation from the government (Abong 2015; Susilo 2007). The implementation of curricula in Indonesia has been marred by a series of controversies, epitomised by the tumultuous transitions from the Competency Based Curriculum (KBK) to the Education Unit Level Curriculum (KTSP) in 2006 (Abong 2015; Rofalina 2013; Akuntono 2014). The haphazard dissemina- tion of information concerning these changes, particularly in rural areas, led to misconceptions among educators, exacerbating the already chaotic classroom practices (Abong 2015; Ekawati 2013). Subsequent attempts to introduce the Cur- riculum 2013 (K13) were met with vehement opposition from various sectors of society, including parents and academics, resulting in the government’s conces- sion to allow schools the choice of retaining KTSP or implementing K13 (Hara- hap 2014; Niken 2014; Ekawati 2013; Setiawan 2013). This indecision persisted as the government introduced yet another curriculum, the Emancipated Cur- riculum (IKM) further fragmenting the educational landscape (Zulfikar 2022). As a result, a multitude of curricula, including KTSP, K13 and IKM, are concur- rently in use across the nation, leaving teachers bewildered and highlighting the endemic confusion surrounding educational policies in Indonesia (Supriatna et al. 2023; Firmansyah 2022; Abong 2015). Indonesian Rural Schools In Indonesia, rural areas are officially identified as regions lagging behind in economic development, human resources, accessibility, and distinct character- istics, as outlined in President Decree No. 131 Year 2015. Within the scope of this research, rural schools are those situated in economically disadvantaged areas with limited human resources and accessibility. Research by Febriana et al. (2018) indicates a shortage of teachers in rural schools since many educators prefer not to work in these locations (also see Bagley and Hillyard 2013). This means that students in rural areas are dispro- portionately affected by existing curriculum policies compared to their coun- terparts in urban areas (Dharmaputra 2019). Studies show significantly poorer academic outcomes in elementary and secondary schools located in remote and rural settings compared to urban schools (Beatty et al. 2018). A district-wide survey conducted by Maulana et al. (2022) in East Nusa Tenggara province, one of Indonesia’s most remote and economically challenged regions, revealed alarming literacy and numeracy deficiencies among students. For instance, five out of six pupils were unable to read a single word or carry out fundamental 494 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 494 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA mathematical tasks like adding one digit. Even worse, the majority were unable to distinguish between the letters “D” and “P”. These findings underscore the pervasive obstacles facing Indonesian students in rural areas in meeting national learning objectives (World Bank 2020). The struggle for educational equity is notably acute in impoverished, remote and rural districts where access to quality education and teacher motivation are lack- ing (Karolina et al. 2021; Hujaimah et al. 2023). RESEARCH CONTEx T The research delved into teachers’ perspectives in a rural district in eastern Indonesia, specifically in one of the provinces, East Nusa Tenggara. This area is among the most rural and underdeveloped in the region, with the third-lowest Human Development Index compared to other provinces in Indonesia (Rosy- adah 2021) and in the bottom two for its economic condition (Oli 2022), making the voices of its participants especially critical. The research attempted to dis- cover inequalities in the implementation of curricula in Indonesia from social capital perspectives. However, teachers’ background and experiences were also considered to enrich the discussion. The focus of the social capital theory is to scrutinise disparities that emerge when social capital in communities is unevenly distributed and of varying quality (Gamarnokow and Green 2009; Field 2003; Nahapiet and Ghosal 1998; Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch 1995). The objective of the study was to explore teachers’ social capital in a rural district in Indone- sia and with their social capital how they perceive and implement the curricula in Indonesia. The study thus proposes policy recommendations for the future educational policies of Indonesia, specifically in rural areas. In this study, three curricula are considered: KTSP, K13 and IKM. In any event, the primary aim remains to evaluate the curricula implementations through the social capital lens, particularly as concerns teachers in rural contexts. RESEARCH DESIGN Given the research objective and viewpoint of this study, which is to demon- strate rural teachers’ social capital to further reveal inequalities in the imple- mentation of Indonesian curricula, a qualitative design with a case study approach appeared to be the most suitable choice. According to Thomas (2017), a case study is a method used to investigate a person, group, phenomenon, event, and locations that are the focus of inquiry. In this study, the subjects of the research were teachers in rural Indonesia. Meanwhile, to collect data semi-struc- tured interviews with group settings were employed. Sutton and Austin (2015) emphasise that semi-structured interviews have the capacity to uncover the underlying reasons behind individuals’ thoughts and emotions, thereby influ- encing their perceptions and attitudes. Employing this method also enables researchers to formulate interview questions dynamically during the interview sessions (Thomas 2017). 495 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 495 • let. 61, 2/2024 The collected data were analysed using thematic analysis following the guidelines by Miles and Huberman (1994). Initially, all transcriptions of the research findings were read through to identify potential themes and topics for discussion. Essential parts were marked with different colours to facilitate this process. All emerging themes and patterns were subsequently examined to bet- ter understand the findings. The next phase involved deductive analysis. Accord - ing to Hyde (2000), deductive analysis is appropriate when theories pertinent to the topic of the study have already been established. Using this method, teachers’ perspectives were analysed, aligning them with relevant frameworks and ideas. Ten teachers from eastern Indonesia were randomly selected based on the condition that they were teaching in the designated district, possessed a min- imum of 1 year of teaching experience, and expressed a willingness to parti- cipate. The study comprised two male teachers (n = 2) and eight female teach- ers (n = 8), aged between 25 and 47 years old. The respondents engaged in three group interviews, each consisting of 2–4 participants. They were interviewed from the end of 2022 to early 2023. As noted by Rabiee (2004), group interviews were used to encourage participants to express their opinions comfortably and potentially present diverse viewpoints within the same group. This method was deemed suitable for collecting distinctive voices and obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the curricula implementation in Indonesia. To ensure confid- entiality, all participant information was safeguarded through the use of pseud- onyms, and any identifying details were excluded from the transcripts. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS As mentioned, this study hypothesised that teachers’ social capital, namely their networks, access and resources, could lead to different perspectives on cur- ricula in Indonesia. This, in turn, will also impact classroom realities and stu- dents’ performance. Following the data analysis, the findings and discussion are presented simultaneously in this section. The empirical results and findings con - cerning participants’ profiles and social capital, along with insights gleaned from the participants’ statements, are organised into parts. The section begins with explorations of the teachers’ profiles and social capital illustrating the diversity among participants in terms of background. This information gives the essential context for the discussion that follows. Participants’ Profiles and Social Capital The discussion below presents information about the profiles and social cap- ital of each participant, grouped according to their affiliated schools, who were interviewed simultaneously as a group. Table 2 summarises the information on teachers’ social capital status in the respective groups: 496 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 496 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Table 2: THE TEACHERS’ SOCIAL CAPITAL School Name Social Capital Status SD Waihama Roni Low Social Capital Marthinus Low Social Capital Inya No Social Capital Cappa Extremely Low Social Capital SD Binabun Ina Low Social Capital Rosalia Extremely Low Social Capital Nuna Low Social Capital Sita Low Social Capital SD Karere Morni Low Social Capital Vita Low Social Capital Source: Interview Analysis Results. The above table shows that the majority of the participants had low social capital. The following table provides detailed descriptions of the teachers’ social capital as categorised by their affiliated schools. Table 3 pertains to Elementary School (SD) Waihama. Table 3: PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILES AND SOCIAL CAPITAL FROM SD WAIHAMA School Participants’ Profile SD Waihama Roni had been teaching at SD Waihama for around 2 years after graduating with a bachelor’s degree. He was not acquainted with anyone employed in the government’s education division in the regency. However, he was a member of two teachers’ organisations within his district and had attended a workshop focused on evaluation design under K13. Marthinus had taught for 1 year in the school. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree. He was also a member of the teachers’ organisation in the district. Yet, he did not have any connections with government staff. Similar to Roni, he had attended a workshop on evaluation design from K13. Among this group, Inya was the most experienced, having taught for 10 years. Alongside teaching, she was pursuing a bachelor’s degree at an open university. Inya was not acquainted with anyone in the government’s education division and had not participated in any seminars or workshops regarding curricula or regulations. Cappa, who had been teaching for 2 years at the time of the interview, also held a bachelor’s degree. She was the only one in this group who knew a staff member working in the government’s education division. Despite this connection, she had not engaged in any seminars, workshops or similar activities related to curricula or regulations. Source: Interview Results. 497 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 497 • let. 61, 2/2024 The table above shows that teachers from SD Waihama exhibit different characteristics of social capital. Roni and Marthinus, being part of the teachers’ organisation, had the opportunity to attend a workshop related to K13. In con- trast, Inya, despite her extensive 10-year teaching experience, had no social cap- ital. Cappa, even though connected to government staff in the education division in the regency, lacked information about regulations and curricula. Finally, this allows the conclusion that Roni and Marthinus have low social capital, Cappa has extremely low social capital and Inya has no social capital. Thus, this group may not have a robust social capital background. Table 4: PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILES AND SOCIAL CAPITAL FROM SD BINABUN School Participants’ Profiles SD Binabun Ina had been teaching for 11 years in the same school, holding a diploma in tourism. She confirmed that she did not have any connections with the governmental organisation. However, she was a member of a teachers’ organisation. This meant she had opportunities to be part of several workshops on Indonesian curricula. Rosalia was one of the dedicated teachers at the school; she had been teaching at the school for around 12 years. She had recently earned her bachelor’s degree in one of the open universities in the regency. Although not affiliated with any organisation, she has actively engaged in several workshops on Indonesian curricula. Nuna, having taught for about 12 years, was pursuing her bachelor’s degree during the time of the interview. Despite not being part of any organisation, she had a connection with a stakeholder in the education division of the regency. Her teaching role also provided her with multiple opportunities to attend workshops on curricula. Sita was also one of the dedicated teachers; she had taught for about 11 years. Nuna was doing her bachelor studies. She did not have any channel to the governmental staff from the education division in the regency. Still, she had joined one of the teachers’ organisations in the district. She had participated in workshops about the curricula in Indonesia multiple times. Source: Interview Results. The teachers in the second group have longer tenures in teaching. Each has their own social capital, for example Nuna who has a connection to a stakeholder in the regency. Sita and Ina were part of a teachers’ organisation in the district. Notably, all had access to knowledge through multiple participation in work- shops. They mentioned that the topics from the workshop were almost identical each time, often revolving around educational media for teaching activities. They also expressed the lack of clear vision regarding the workshops. However, it appears stronger than the previous group since three teachers have low social capital and one teacher has extremely low social capital. 498 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 498 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Table 5: PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILES AND SOCIAL CAPITAL FROM SD KARERE School Participants’ Profiles SD Karere Morni appeared to be the most experienced teacher among all the participants in this study, having taught for nearly 14 years. At the time of the interview, she was pursuing her bachelor’s degree at one of the open universities in the regency. In addition, she was a member of a teachers’ organisation in the district and had participated in several workshops related to Indonesian curricula. However, she did not have any connections to government staff in the regency. Vita had a teaching career spanning approximately 12 years. She was also pursuing her bachelor’s degree. She lacked connections with governmental staff in the regency and was not affiliated with any organisation. Nonetheless, she had had several opportunities to participate in workshops focusing on the curricula. Source: Interview Results. The social capital held by this group might not differ significantly from the previous one (Table 2) in that one teacher has low social capital and the other one is categorised as having extremely low social capital. Both groups comprised dedicated teachers who devoted considerable time to their careers and had access to curricula workshops. To sum up, participants across the three groups differ in their backgrounds, experiences, and social capital. The third group has participants with the longest tenure of teaching compared to the other groups, while the first group has the most participants with a higher education level. In terms of social capital, the majority of the teachers have low social capital and some extremely low social capital. Yet, not all participants possess social capital; for example, Inya does not have any at all. The social capital among the three groups might therefore not be considerable. They do not possess all the necessary aspects – resources, networks and access. This implies that social capital is not well distributed among teachers in the district (see Gamarnokow and Green 2009; Field 2003; Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch 1995). Understanding of the Curricula – Ambiguities Based on the interview, it was discovered that no participant was aware of the new implemented curriculum, IKM. Despite the curriculum having been social- ised since 2021 (see MoECRT 2022b), they were not acquainted with this crucial information relevant to teachers. They mentioned that the only curriculum cur- rently being implemented is K13. “We now have K13 as our curriculum”, Vita “I don’t know about any curriculum other than K13 that we are currently implementing”, Sita 499 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 499 • let. 61, 2/2024 The above statements clearly highlight the lack of information among teach- ers regarding IKM. When we probed their knowledge of IKM by using spe- cific keywords to explore their understanding, they appeared confused and questioned the statements offered. This indicates a complete lack of knowledge among the participants about IKM, the new curriculum launched in Indonesia. It further emphasises that the teachers’ connections to governmental staff, con- sidered as their social capital, might not have been responsible for significant differences among the participants. Even though Cappa and Nuna had connec- tions to stakeholders, they also did not receive any relevant information about IKM. This indicates that social capital might not be utilised well (see Field 2003), revealing a missed opportunity for them to gather more information about the policy or regulation. The discussion with the participants primarily revolved around K13. In an attempt to gauge their understanding of the curriculum, the researchers sought their interpretations regarding the purpose of K13. However, not one participant had a clear conception of the overarching idea behind K13; most seemed puzzled and appeared at a loss when faced with the question. Their expressions showed confusion, and some teachers admitted outright that they did not know. Others provided random answers, as evident from the transcript below “The function is to find what the students know”, Roni “The purpose is to get the students to learn the technology in order to make them well educated”, Cappa Roni and Cappa’s understanding revealed their lack of knowledge about the purpose of K13. This might be attributed to the participants’ limited exposure to current curricula or the inadequacy of the information they had received, hindering their comprehension of K13. This sentiment strongly resonated with their reflections on the workshops they had attended. Both Roni and Marthinus expressed confusion arising from their workshop experiences. Similarly, parti- cipants from the second and third groups also conveyed their lack of clarity and confusion following the workshops. Roni and Marthinus explicitly highlighted this in their statements: “When we join the workshop, we get confused about how to make the questions for the evaluation [of K13 assessments] and it is difficult”, Roni “I remember that we finally went home after the workshop and they asked us to copy the questions from Google [the Internet]”, Marthinus Hence, despite the participants’ engagement in various workshops, it did not facilitate their understanding of K13. Some argued that they never had the 500 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 500 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA opportunity to access or review the K13 document, which could have contributed to their lack of understanding of the current regulations in Indonesia. Moreover, their unclear comprehension of the present curricula in Indonesia aligns with findings from Sugiyono et al.’s research (2014) indicating that many teachers had struggled with the K13 concepts. The discussion above intangibly explained how several teachers in this study had access to knowledge, social resources and channels to governmental staff. It means that considering what Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) says, they have social capital, but it might not translate into advantageous resources (see Nahapiet and Ghosal 1998). It could be because they still do not possess the shared value as a group or community (see Putnam 1995; Bourdieu and Wac- quant 1992; Coleman 1988). It finally led to limited social capital and contrib- uted to their understanding of the curriculum. Implementation of the Curriculum – Classroom Realities The participants’ inability to grasp the current curriculum in Indonesia calls for further exploration within classroom realities. This makes it crucial to dis- cuss how the teachers in this study were implementing the curriculum. Upon analytically evaluating all the interview conversations, it became evident that the conditions in their classroom were also perplexing to understand. Most par- ticipants said that they had no clue how to implement the K-13 curriculum. Some statements which resounded are as follows: “It is quite difficult for me … even more we [teachers] get confused what to teach to the students when we use [it: K13]”, Inya “We as teachers get confused how to apply [it: K13]”, Cappa The statements above reinforce the earlier discussion on participants’ lack of understanding of the curriculum’s concept, as reflected in their struggles with implementing K13. This led to confusion in application of the curriculum. Parti- cipants across the three groups mentioned providing materials in line with K13, but their instructional approach followed KTSP. Some participants confirmed as follows: “So, based on the steps in the classroom, we do not follow K13”, Sita “We still use KTSP for our students”, Ina “Because by using KTSP, the teacher could teach based on the modules but K13 would use theme, sub-theme and there are different modules in one theme”, Inya 501 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 501 • let. 61, 2/2024 “KTSP is easier because it is [clear] for all the modules”, Ina This indicates a lack of understanding among the participants, which in turn affects their classroom implementation. Some participants elaborated on how they scheduled modules for their students. The following statement offers a clearer view of how the teachers were implementing the curriculum: “On Monday we teach just religion and on the next day would be another module”, Cappa This demonstrated how the teachers organised the classroom according to the KTSP curriculum. They did not teach based on individual subjects but rather on themes if they were implementing K13 (see Supriatna et al. 2023; Ekawati 2013). However, the way teachers were implementing KTSP in classroom activities might not align precisely with the KTSP curriculum. Some participants did not fully adhere to the instructions outlined in KTSP as they lacked a clear under- standing of the steps involved in classroom activities according to it (see Supri- atna et al. 2023). The statement below illustrates this point: “I just teach ABC (the alphabet), 1,2,3 (numbers), [and] singing everyday, because the point is that the students understand the materials given. To be honest, I do not know the steps [based on KTSP]”, Sita Sita’s explanation highlighted the fact that the teachers do not have a cur- riculum system implemented in the classroom. They tend to teach based on their understanding of the education system in general rather than implementing a specific curriculum, K13 or KTSP. This represents the prevailing reality in Indonesian classrooms within the context of this study. Despite K13 being in place for almost a decade, teachers are still grappling with its implementation. Instead, the previous curriculum, introduced approximately 16 years ago in 2006, continues to be used, albeit not entirely accurately implemented. This strongly implies that some curricula implemented at the same time triggers confusion (see Firmansyah 2022). The discussion on the implementation of curricula in Indonesia above stresses the fact that teachers’ experiences and educational backgrounds might not suf- ficiently support their understanding of their practices. In addition, attending workshops did not significantly enhance their comprehension compared to those who had attended only one or none at all. This suggests that the teachers’ social capital might not effectively contribute to their implementation of Indone- sian curricula (see Nahapiet and Ghosal 1998). One primary reason for this challenge could be the unequal distribution of social capital among the groups (see Gamarnokow and Green 2009; Field 2003; Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch 502 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 502 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA 1995), partly due to their rural location, as suggested in previous studies (see Bagley and Hillyard 2013; Febriana et al. 2018). Ruralness affected the distribu- tion of social capital, and it might potentially influence their comprehension, perspectives, and implementation of the Indonesian curriculum. Although each teacher in this study possesses social capital to some extent, its integration among them to benefit the community was lacking. Effects on the students – Disconnected in the Globalised World This section examines how the teachers’ comprehension and curriculum implementation may adversely affect students’ classroom achievements. Several participants expressed concerns about their students’ grasp of the lessons, not- ing that their performance fell below the national standard (see MoECRT 2021). For instance, some third-grade students struggled to differentiate certain letters, while others faced challenges recalling and distinguishing basic numbers from 1 to 10. “I am teaching the third graders and I know some of my students could not remember all the letters in alphabets and numbers”, Roni “Even for the sixth graders, some students could not read and could not count in basic literacy”, Cappa The remarks made by Roni and Cappa suggest that the students exhibit signs of illiteracy and their overall quality falls significantly below the national stand- ard. As per the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoECRT) guidelines for the first grade, students are expected to possess foundational skills such as basic addition, comprehension of sentences from reading texts, and the ability to com- pose simple texts (MoECRT 2021). A survey in the district revealed that a major- ity of students were struggling with basic literacy and numeracy (see Maulana et al. 2022). This implies that the teachers’ low social capital might impact students’ academic achievement (see Aslam et al. 2013; Field 2003; Dika and Singh 2002). In light of this situation, teachers have recognised that this poses a disadvantage for the students. “I am so sad and angry at this condition, since education is really so important”, Sita “Yes, this should not happen because we know that some people out there have gone to the moon while we are still crawling on the earth. What the students in the city get should be experienced by our students”, Ina 503 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 503 • let. 61, 2/2024 The responses from the participants were reasonable, demonstrating their understanding of the need to progress in this era of globalisation as the future impacts for their students (see Fink-Hafner, Dagen, and Hafner-Fink 2022). However, the barriers their students face could limit their development, possibly stemming from challenges in the implementation of the curriculum due to their ruralness (see Febriana et al. 2018). Ultimately, it is evident how the teachers’ restricted access, networks, resources, and curriculum impacts their understand- ing and implementation. The teachers’ social capital thus plays a significant role in shaping the final outcomes of students’ achievements (see Bourdieu and Wac- quant 1992). The findings also confirm the previous study by Yansyah (2020) that the policy in Indonesia fails to consider teachers’ diversity and their social capital that potentially contributes to some groups being disadvantaged. The study fur- ther strengthens the criticism levelled against education standards in Indonesia (see Mukminin et al. 2019). It also implies that with the social capital the teachers possess they might not be prepared to adopt IKM by the end of 2024. Voices for the Future – Recommendations This section presents a crucial discussion on teachers’ recommendations. It offers insights into their expectations for future regulations, especially as con- cerns curricula implementation in rural areas. Among the participants, at least three recommendations emerged: focusing on a specific curriculum, ensuring consistency in terms, and providing clear information about the curriculum. The first recommendation highlights the need for the government to concentrate on a single curriculum to prevent teacher confusion. Morni stated: “Our curriculum is just on and off, we have the new curriculum and we left the old. Meanwhile, we still do not focus (understand) on the old one”, Morni Morni’s recommendation arose from her experience as a teacher, highlight- ing her struggle in adapting to the new curriculum after not having fully grasped the previous one. Her sentiment was not unique; many participants held similar concerns. They suggested that while curriculum changes might be necessary, the new curriculum should not deviate too far from the previous one. This continu- ity would aid in their understanding of the terminology and the overall system of the curriculum in Indonesia. “Although the curriculum would be changed, we hope that it is not different from the previous one and that the terms would not be changed”, Sita The final recommendation, as emphasised by several participants, aligns with Cappa’s perspective. She expressed that introducing a new curriculum is accept- able, but clear information is vital. Cappa stated: 504 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 504 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA “Even though the curriculum is different, it is not a problem. Yet, there should be seminars, workshops [about it] because we will not understand the curriculum if there are no workshops”, Cappa The recommendations provided by the teachers reflect their expectations of government regulations. Most importantly, the teachers understand that they lack information and understanding of the curricula. This indicates how social capital might be important for the teachers. For the government, pondering social capital as the basis of the regulation is one of the key elements to also con- sider teachers’ social capital in designing such a policy (see Lang and Hornburg 1998). Finally, this study rejects the earlier hypothesis that teachers’ social capital (their networks, access and resources) could lead to different perspectives on curricula and their implementation in Indonesia. This might happen because the social capital of all the participants has similar characteristics, mostly that it is low social capital. This means their perspectives might not differ among each other. Yet, their low social capital indicates their lack of understanding of each curriculum and students’ performance in the classroom (see Aslam et al. 2013; Field 2003; Dika and Singh 2002). CONCLUSION The outcome showed that the participants from rural districts in Indonesia have different backgrounds, experiences and social capital, and remained largely unaware of the government’s curriculum changes. Despite having attended cur- riculum-related seminars, having access to government employees, and being part of various teacher organisations, their understanding and implementation of the Indonesian curriculum remained limited. In terms of social capital, most participants had low social capital. Further, not all of them had social capital, which means that social capital is not well distributed among the teachers in the district, and some have an extreme lack of social capital. As a result, the ambigu- ity during classroom practices significantly impacted the students’ performance. This study rejects the earlier hypothesis that teachers’ social capital (namely, their networks, access and resources) could lead to different perspectives on cur- ricula and their implementation in Indonesia. The groups which were potentially adversely affected by such curriculum policy implementation are teachers and students in rural areas, pointing to significant inequality in the implementation of Indonesian curricula. The government’s insufficient attention to leveraging teachers’ social capital amplifies the challenges these marginalised groups face in the education system. Thus, with the social capital the teachers possess, they might not be prepared to adopt IKM by the end of 2024. 505 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 505 • let. 61, 2/2024 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Changes in Indonesian policymaking significantly influence how teachers, particularly those in rural areas, comprehend and implement policies. To some extent, this policy implementation may exacerbate existing inequalities among certain groups. Addressing this disparity calls for a thoughtful and inclus- ive approach by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology (MoECRT), denoted by increased awareness and transparency regarding the shortcomings of Indonesia’s education system. The government plays a pivotal role in providing steady and ongoing assistance. The government must set aside sufficient funding for teacher preparation and resource development in order to implement IKM (the Emancipated Curriculum) uniformly across Indonesia’s schools, including those in remote areas. Teachers’ social capital should there- fore be at the heart of the implementation. The diversity of resources, networks and access can impact the distinctiveness, quality and knowledge among teach- ers. Further, to ensure that schools utilise the IKM accurately and in compliance with the set requirements, ongoing monitoring and assessment are also para- mount. It is envisaged that effective and staggered implementation will result in widespread adoption of the IKM across Indonesian schools, delivering sig- nificant advantages for the academic progress of Indonesian pupils. Finally, the Indonesian government should establish short-, medium- to long-term visions to solidify future educational goals aiming for curriculum stability and avoiding frequent changes. LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS The study drew upon the perspectives of teachers through some comprehens- ive semi-structured interviews in group settings. As a result, all findings within this investigation are rooted in the wealth of knowledge, varied viewpoints, and extensive experience provided by these participants. Subsequent research endeavours would benefit from direct observations of the practical implement- ation within classrooms. Employing a triangulation approach by incorporating insights from government representatives and educational leaders could offer additional perspectives. In addition, expanding the current study to encompass a more comprehensive quantitative survey on understanding and practical applic- ations would serve as a foundational phase for a broader qualitative investigation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abong, Rustam. 2015. “Konstelasi Kurikulum Pendidikan di Indonesia”. At-Turats 9 (2): 39–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24260/at-turats.v9i2.314 Abidin, Dindin, Elly Retnaningrum, Jolanda Parinussa, Dewi Kuning, Yance Manoppo, I Kartika. 2023. “Curriculum Development in Indonesia from a Historical Perspective”. Journal of Education Research 4 (2): 443–51. Adler, Paul, and Seok Kwon. 2002. “Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept”. The Academy of Management Review 27 (1): 17–40. 506 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 506 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA Akuntono, Indra. 2014. “Kurikulum dan Pertimbangan yang Tak Terungkap.” KOMPAS.com, 5 December 2022. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2014/12/12/12280881/Kurikulum.dan. Pertimbangan.yang.Tak.Terungkap. Ali-Hassan, Hossam. 2009. “Social Capital Theory”. In: Handbook of Research on Contempor- ary Theoretical Models in Information Systems, edited by Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Banita Lal, Michael D. Williams, Scott L. Schneberger, Michael Wade, 420–33. Pennsylvania: IGI Global. Allan, Julie (ed.), Jenny Ozga (ed.) and Gerandine Smyth (ed.). 2009. Social Capital, Profession- alism and Diversity. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Aslam, Haris, Kuram Shahzad, Shed Aly, and Ramish Asher. 2013. “Social Capital and Know- ledge Sharing as Determinants of Academic Performance”. Journal of Behavioral and Ap- plied Management 15 (1): 25–41. Astuti, Rina. 2022. “5 Organisasi di Indonesia, PGRI hingga Pergunu.” DetikJatim, 2 April 2024. https://www.detik.com/jatim/berita/d-6424583/5-organisasi-guru-di-indonesia-pgri- hingga-pergunu. Bagley, Carl, and Sam Hillyard. 2014. “Rural Schools, Social Capital and the Big Society: A The- oretical and Empirical Exposition”. British Educational Research Journal 40 (1): 63–78. Bahri, Syamsul. 2022. “Pemulihan Pembelajaran di Sekolah Melalui Kurikulum Prototipe. Schol- aria”. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 12 (3): 204–15. Beatty, Amanda, Emilie Berkhout, Luhur Bima, Menno Pradhan and Daniel Suryadarma. 2021. “Schooling Progress, Learning Reversal: Indonesia’s Learning Profiles Between 2000 and 2014”. International Journal of Educational Development 85: 1–16. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital”. In: Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, John G. Richardson (ed), 241–58. New York: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loic Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Brauer, Kai. 2010. “Social Capital, Definition of”. In: International Encyclopaedia of Civil Society, Helmut K. Anheier and Stefan Toepler, 1388–96. New York: Springer. Claridge, Tristan. 2004. “Social Capital and Natural R Management: An Important Role for So- cial Capital?”. B.A. Thesis. Brisbane: University of Queensland. Coburn, Cynthia, and Lin Russell. 2008. “District Policy and Teachers’ Social Networks”. Educa- tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis 30 (3): 203–35. Dian, Ihsan. 2023. “Kurikulum Merdeka Jadi Kurikulum Nasional di 2023”. Kompas.com, 27 March 2024. https://www.kompas.com/edu/read/2023/09/18/161052171/kurikulum-mer- deka-jadi-kurikulum-nasional-di-2024. Coleman, James. 1988. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dika, Sandra, and Kusum Singh. 2002. “Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A Critical Synthesis”. Review of Educational Research 72 (1): 31–60. Durlauf, Steven N., and Marcel Fafchamps. 2005. “Chapter 26 Social Capital”. In: Handbook of Economic Growth, Philippe Aghion and Steven N. Durlauf (eds.), vol. 1, part B, 1639–99. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ekawati, Yulia. 2018. “The Implementation of Curriculum 2013: A Case Study of English Teach- ers’ Experience at SMA Lab School in Indonesia”. Beltic Journal 1 (2): 74–80. Febriana, Mia, Joko Nurkamto, Dewi Rochsantiningsih, and Muhtia Anggri. 2018. “Teaching in Rural Indonesian Schools: Teachers’ Challenges”. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding 5 (5): 11–20. 507 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 507 • let. 61, 2/2024 Field, John. 2003. Social Capital. New York: Routledge. Firmansyah, Muhamad. 2022. “Federasi Serikat Guru Sebut Kurikulum Merdeka Bingungkan Para Guru.” Tempo.co, 5 December 2022. https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1560816/feder- asi-serikat-guru-sebut-kurikulum-merdeka-bingungkan-para-guru. Fink-Hafner, Danica, Tamara Dagen, and Mitja Hafner-Fink. 2022. “Research Issues in the Higher Education Field in Times of Challenged Globalisation”. Teorija in Praksa 52 (2): 443–63. Gamarnokow, Eva, and Anthony Green. 2009. “Social Capitalism for Linking Professionalism and Social Justice in Education”. In: Social Capital, Professionalism and Diversity, Julie Allan, Jenny Ozga and Smyth Gerandine (eds.), 1–20. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Glaeser, Edward, David Laibson, Jose Scheinkman, and Christine Soutter. 2000. “Measuring Trust”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3): 811–46. Harahap, Rachmad. 2013. “3 Alasan Penolakan Kurikulum 2013.” Okenews, 09 September 2023. https://news.okezone.com/read/2013/05/21/560/810551/3-alasan-penolakan-kur- ikulum-2013. Hujaimah, Salamah, Allya Fadhilah, Raisyal Sasmita, Aisyah Salsabila, Mira Mariani, Dadi Nu- graha, and Gunawan Santoso. 2023. “Faktor, Penyebab, dan Solusi Kesenjangan Sosial Dalam Pendidikan”. Jurnal Pendidikan Transformatif 2 (6): 142–48. Hyde, Kenneth. 2000. “Recognising Deductive Processes in Qualitative Research”. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 3 (2): 82–89. Iglič, Hajdeja. 2022. “Positioning of Individual and the Mobilisation Potential of Political Discus- sion Networks”. Teorija in Praksa 59 (1): 77–94. Jannah, Raodatul. 2023. “Analysis of Educational Curriculum Evolution in Indonesia and Its Impact on Increasing Education Quality”. International Journal of Asian Education 3 (8): 2041–49. Karolina, Venny, Sri Buwono, Aminuyati, HAdi Wiyono, and Carla Queiroz. 2021. “Equality and Equity in Indonesian Education: The Consequences of Decentralization”. International Journal of Community Service 1 (3): 272–85. Kastawi, Nurholis, Widodo Swarno, and Mulyaningrum Eko. 2017. “Kendala dalam Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 di Jawa Tengah dan Strategi Penanganannya”. Indonesian Journal of Cur- riculum and Educational Technology Studies 5 (2): 66–76. Kankanhalli, Atreyi, Tan Bernard, and Wei Kwok-Kee. 2005. “Contributing Knowledge to Elec- tronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation”. MIS Quarterly 29 (1): 113–43. Krissandi, Apri, and Rusmawan. 2015. “Kendala Guru Sekolah Dasar dalam Implementasi Kur- ikulum 2013”. Cakrawala Pendidikan 34 (3): 457–67. Lang, Robert, and Steven Hornburg. 1998. “What is Social Capital and Why Is It Important to Public Policy?” Housing Policy Debate 9 (1): 1–16. Leonardi, Robert. 1995. “Regional Development in Italy: Social Capital and the Mezzogiorno”. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 11 (2): 165–79. Miles, Matthew, and Michael Huberman. 1994. “Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook”. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14 (4): 336–37. Maulana, Sandy, Salsabila Kusumawardani, Dedy Junaedi, Upik Sabainingrum, and Geshica Lavendra. 2022. “Baseline Report: Studi Evaluasi Dampak Program BERSAMA di Sumba Barat Daya”. Jakarta: Article 33 Indonesia. Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC). 2003. “Act Number 20 Year 2003 on the National Education System”. Accessed 27 March 2024. https://asiindoc.undana.ac.id/Home/Open- 508 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 508 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA FileWithName?fileUrl=Files%5CDokumen%5C2023%5C6%5C2a01f377-a61c-46bd-8c4b- 00b04e6cbf25.pdf&fileName=Appendix%204.2.%20%20UU%20No%2020%20Tahun%20 2023%20-%20National%20Education%20System.pdf. Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC). 2014. “Konsep dan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan RI”. Accessed 25 March 2022. https://www.kem- dikbud.go.id/kemdikbud/dokumen/Paparan/Paparan%20Wamendik.pdf. Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology (MoECRT). 2021. “Capaian Pem- belajaran Bahasa Indonesia Fase A – Fase F Untuk SD/MI/Program Paket A, SMP/MTS Program Paket B dan SMA/MA/SMK/MAK/Program Paket C. Badan Standar Kurikulum dan Asesmen Pendidikan Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset dan Teknologi RI”. Accessed 30 March 2022. https://kurikulum.kemdikbud.go.id/file/cp/dasmen/8.%20CP%20 Bahasa%20Indonesia.pdf. Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology (MoECRT). 2022a. “Kurikulum Merdeka Jadi Jawaban untuk Atasi Krisis Pembelajaran.” Accessed 7 April 2022. https:// www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2022/02/kurikulum-merdeka-jadi-jawaban-untuk-ata- si-krisis-pembelajaran. Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology (MoECRT). 2022b. “Merdeka Belajar Episode 15: Kurikulum Merdeka dan Platform Merdeka Mengajar.” Accessed 7 July 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2-s6yY9yoI. Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology (MoECRT). 2023. “Perdirjen GTK Nomor 7607 Tentang Juknis Pengelolaan Kinerja Guru Dan Kepala Sekolah.” Accessed 1 April 2024. https://pusatinformasi.guru.kemdikbud.go.id/hc/en-us/articles/2603724706 4217-Tentang-Poin-di-Pengembangan-Kompetensi-untuk-Guru. Mukminin, Amirul, Akhmad Habibi, Lantip Prasojo, Abdullah Idi, and Afreni Hamidah. 2019. “Curriculum Reform in Indonesia: Moving from an Exclusive to Inclusive Curriculum”. C.E.P.S Journal 9 (2): 53–71. Nahapiet, Janine, and Sumantra Ghoshal. 1998. “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage”. The Academy of Management Review 23 (2): 242–66. Niken. 2014. “PMII Garut Demo Tolak Ajaran Kurikulum 2013”. Liputan 6, 15 October 2014. https://www.liputan6.com/citizen6/read/2119218/pmii-garut-demo-tolak-ajaran-kuriku- lum-2013. OECD. 2017. OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust. Paris: OECD Publishing. Oli, Maria R. Y. 2023. “Analisis Pengaruh Pertumbuhan Ekonomi, Pendidikan, Pengangguran, dan Kemiskinan Terhadap Migrasi TKI Keluar Negeri”. Journal of Development Economic and Social Studies 2 (1): 182–93. President of Indonesia. 2015. “Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 131 Tahun 2015 Tentang Penetapan Daerah Tertinggal Tahun 2015–2019”. Accessed 27 March 2023. ht- tps://bphn.go.id/data/documents/15pr131.pdf. Putnam, Robert 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Disintegrating Social Capital”. Journal of Democracy 6 (1): 65–78. Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and the Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rofalina, Fanny. 2013. “Kurikulum membingungkan, pendidikan terancam”. Liputan 6. Accessed 25 January 2023. https://www.liputan6.com/citizen6/read/784373/kurikulum-membingun- gkan-pendidikan-terancam. 509 • let. 61, 2/2024 • A Social Capital Study: Rural Teachers’ Voices Concerning the Implementation… 509 • let. 61, 2/2024 Rosyadah, Jihan. 2021. “Determinan Indeks Pembangunan Manusia (IPM) Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT)”. Efficient: Indonesian Journal of Development Economics 4 (1): 1080–92. Savioli, Marco, and Roberto Patuelli. 2016. “Social Capital, Institutions and Policymaking.” Eco- nomics Discussion Papers, No 2016–26, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Accessed 5 May 2022. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2016–26. Schuller, Tom. 2000. “Social and Human Capital: The Search for Appropriate Ethnomethodo- logy”. Policy Studies 21 (1): 25–35. Setiawan, Dian. 2013. “Tolak Kurikulum 2013, Mahasiswa Demo Dinas Pendidikan”. Radarcire- bon. Accessed 17 February 2023. https://radarcirebon.disway.id/read/8749/tolak-kuriku- lum-2013-mahasiswa-demo-dinas-pendidikan. Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo, and Sanford Dornbusch. 1995. “Social Capital and the Reproduction of Inequality: Information Networks among Mexican-Origin High School Students”. Soci- ology of Education 68 (2): 116–35. Supriatna, Muhammad, Istiqomah Diyanti, and Ratna Dewi. 2023. “Analisis Perbandingan Kur- ikulum KTSP, K13 Dan Kurikulum Merdeka Di Sekolah Dasar”. Journal on Education 6 (1): 63–72. Susilo, Muhamad. 2007. Pembodohan Siswa Tersistematis. Jakarta: Perpustakaan Nasional. Sutton, Jane, and Austin Zubin. 2015. “Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis, and Management”. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 68 (3): 226–31. Sugiyono, Sutopo, and Nuryanto Apri. 2014. “Tanggapan Masyarakat Terhadap Implementasi Kurikulum 2013: Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kementerian Pendidikan dan Ke- budayaan”. Accessed 23 February 2023. https://staffnew.uny.ac.id/upload/132296045/ penelitian/tanggapan-masyarakat-terhadap-implementasi-kurikulum-2013.pdf. Thomas, Gary. 2017. How to Do your Research Project: A Guide for Students. London: Sage Publication Ltd. World Bank. 2020. “The Promise of Education in Indonesia”. Washington: World Bank. https:// documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/658151605203420126/pdf/The-Promise-of-Edu- cation-in-Indonesia.pdf. Wulandari, Trisna. 2023. “Jelang Kurikulum Merdeka Jadi Kurikulum Nasional”. Detik.com, 27 December 2023. https://www.detik.com/edu/sekolah/d-7110547/jelang-kurikulum-mer- deka-jadi-kurikulum-nasional-2024. Yansyah, Fikri. 2020. “English Education Policy in Indonesia: A Case Study Current Practices Future Implication”. MA Thesis. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Zulfikar, Fahri. 2022. “Sekolah Punya 3 Opsi, Kemendikbud: Sekolah Tidak Boleh Dipaksakan”. Detik.com, 29 July 2022. https://www.detik.com/edu/sekolah/d-6205970/sekolah-punya- 3-opsi-kemdikbud-kurikulum-merdeka-tidak-boleh-dipaksakan. 510 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA • Fikri YANSYAH, Dini Aulia DWINTAN 510 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA ŠTUDIJA SOCIALNEGA KAPITALA: GLASOVI PODEŽELSKIH UČITELJEV O IZVAJANJU INDONEZIJSKIH UČNIH NAČRTOV Abstract. Z uporabo teorije socialnega kapitala kot okvira je cilj te študije raz- iskati učiteljevo razumevanje, perspektive in raven izvajanja učnih načrtov med učitelji v Indoneziji, da bi identificirali začetne neenakosti in prikrajšane skupine, ki so posledica takšnih političnih praks. Skozi delno strukturirane intervjuje, ki smo jih izvedli v skupinskih nastavitvah, smo s tematsko analizo analizirali gla- sove desetih učiteljev. Ugotovitve poudarjajo pomemben vpliv nizkega socialnega kapitala med podeželskimi učitelji na njihovo razumevanje, perspektive in izvaja- nje učnih načrtov, kar posledično vpliva na uspešnost učencev. Poleg tega študija poudarja, da so podeželski učitelji in njihovi učenci ranljiva demografija, na kate- ro vpliva izvajanje politik, kar poudarja nujnost reforme politike. Ključni pojmi: učni načrti, socialni kapital, neenakost, podeželski indonezijski učitelji, politična praksa.